(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

C 13 
6/: 97 G 
.A 



NORTH CAROLINA STATE LIBRARY 
RALEIGH 

£fartJj Carolina Courts 



N. C. 
Doc 

2 7 1979 




Annual iRcport 
Aomtmatrathie Office of % Cottrta 



The Cover: Chowan County Courthouse, constructed in 1767, is North 
Carolina's oldest county courthouse now in use. Situated in the county seat 
of Edenton, this courthouse is a classic example of Georgian architecture. 
It is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 



1970 Annual Eepnrt 

of th,e 

2f« 0L Abmtntstratfue (Office nf tlje (Enurts 



"QHje (Seneral (Eourt of dlustice sljall constitute a unifieb jubicial , 
sustetn for purposes of jurisbiction, operation, anb abministration, 
anb sljall consist of an Appellate liutsion, a Superior (Eourt 
liutsion, anb a Sistrict (Eourt liuision." 

Art. n, £ec. 2, N. (&. Constitution 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 

Submitted herewith is the Eleventh Annual Report of the Administrative Officer of the Courts. 
This Report, prepared pursuant to G.S. 7A-343, relates to the 1976 calendar year. 



BERTM. MONTAGUE 

Director 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1976nort 



CONTENTS 

Introduction 

The Appellate Division 1 

The Supreme Court 1 

The Court of Appeals 2 

Map of North Carolina Judicial Divisions and Districts 3 

The Superior Court Division 5 

Cases Added and Disposed of, 1972-1976 5 

Total Cases Pending in Superior Courts, 1972-1976 6 

Utilization of Scheduled Superior Courts, 1972-1976 6 

Superior Court Civil Dockets 7 

Civil Cases Added and Disposed of, 1972-1976 9 

Civil Cases Pending, 1972-1976 9 

Ten Counties with Largest Civil Dockets, 1976 10 

Ten Counties with Highest Ratios of Civl Dispositions to Total Caseload II 

Ten Counties with Lowest Ratios of Civil Dispositions to Total Caseload 11 

Civil Cases Pending, Added and Disposed of by Judicial Districts, 1976 12 

Ages of Civil Cases Pending by Judicial District, December 31, 1976 16 

Utilization of Civil Terms by Judicial Districts, 1976 22 

Superior Court Criminal Dockets 25 

Criminal Cases Added and Disposed of, 1972-1976 27 

Criminal Cases Pending, 1972-1976 28 

Ten Counties with Largest Criminal Dockets, 1976 29 

Percent of Criminal Filings Appealed from District Courts 30 

Ten Counties with Highest Ratios of Criminal Dispositions to Toal Caseloads, 1976 30" 

Ten Counties with Lowest Ratios of Civil Dispositions to Total Caseloads, 1976 31 

Criminal Cases Pending, Added and Disposed of by Judicial Districts, 1976 32 

Ages of Felony Cases Pending December 31, 1976, by Judicial Districts 36 

Ages o\' Misdemeanor Cases Pending December 31. 1976, by Judicial Districts 42 

Utilization of Criminal Terms by Judicial Districts 48 

Estates Dockets 51 

Estates Cases Pending, Added and Disposed of by Judicial Districts, 1976 51 

Ten Counties with Highest Ratios of Estates Dispositions to Total Caseload, 1976 55 

Ten Counties with Lowest Ratios of Estates Dispositions to Total Caseload 55 

Ages of Estates Cases Pending December 31,1 976 56 

Special Proceedings Dockets 63 

Special Proceedings Pending, Added and Disposed of by Judicial Districts, 1976 63 

Ten Counties with Highest Ratios of Special Proceedings 

Dispositions to Total Caseload 67 

Ten Counties with Lowest Ratios of Special Proceedings 

Dispositions to Total Caseload 67 

Ages of Special Proceedings Pending December 31, 1976 68 

The District Court Division 75 

Cases Added and Disposed of, 1 972- 1 976 76 

Cases Pending in District Courts, 1972-1976 77 

Total Days of District Court. 1972-1976 78 

Days of Court Held at Each Seat of District Court, 1976 79 

i 



District Court Civ il Dockets 81 

Civil Cases Added and Disposed o\\ D)72-1^76 '. . . 81 

Civil Cases Added and Disposed o\\ 1972-1976 82 

Civil Cases Pending. 1972-1976 83 

Ten Counties with Largest Civil Dockets Pending, December 31, 1976 84 

Ten Counties with Highest Ratios of District Court Civil 

Dispositions to Total Caseloads, 1 976 85 

Ten Counties with Lowest Ratios ol~ District Court Civil 

Dispositions to Total Caseloads, 1976 85 

Civil Cases Pending. Added and Disposed o\\ 1976 86 

Ages of Civil Cases Pending in District Courts, December 3 1, 1976 90 

Juvenile Proceedings 91 

Offenses and Conditions Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, 

b\ Judicial Districts, 1976 92 

Adjudicator} Hearings in Juvenile Proceedings in District 

Courts. b\ Judicial Districts, 1976 96 

District Court Criminal Dockets 101 

Criminal Cases Added and Disposed of in District Courts, 1972-1976 102 

Criminal Cases Pending in District Courts, 1972-1976 103 

Ten Counties with Largest Criminal Dockets Pending 

December 31, 1976 104 

Ten Counties with Highest Ratios of Dispositions to Total Caseload, 1976 105 

Ten Counties with Lowest Ratios of Dispositions to Total Caseload, 1976 105 

Criminal Cases Pending. Added and Disposed of in District Courts, 1976 106 

Ages o\' Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending in District 

Courts December 31, 1976 110 

Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Cases Pending in District Courts, 

December 31, 1976 116 

District Court Activity in Motor Vehicle and Small Claim Cases, 1976 122 

Organizational Administrative Fiscal and Directory Information 127 

A Historical Note 127 

The Present Court System 130 

Judicial Department Lducational Activity in 1976 132 

The North Carolina Judicial Council in 1976 133 

The Judicial Standards Commission in 1976 135 

The Administrative Office of the Courts in 1976 136 

Judicial Department Appropriations, 1975-1976 1 39 

Judicial Department Expenditures, 1975-1976 140 

Lxpenditures for Representation of Indigents, 1975-1976 141 

Assigned Counsel in Criminal Cases, Number of Cases and 

Lxpenditures by Judicial Districts, 1975-1976 142 

Representation of Indigent Mentally III and Inebriate 146 

Judicial Department Receipts. 1975-1976 147 

Fees, Fines and forfeitures Collected and Distributed 

to ( ounties and Municipalities, 1975-1976 148 

Directories (as of December 31, 1976) 151 

rhe Judicial Council 152 

n 



The Judicial Standards Commission 153 

Superior Court Judges I 54 

District Court Judges 156 

District Attorneys 160 

Public Defenders 165 

Special Counsel, Mental Hospitals 165 

Clerks of Superior Court 166 

Chief Court Counselors 16<S 

Magistrates 169 

Administrative Office of the Courts 175 



in 



IV 



INTRODUCTION 

In more ways than one 1976 may be regarded as a milestone for the publication of the annual 
reports of the Administrative Office of the Courts, 1976 marks the beginning of the second decade for 
annual reports on the Judicial Department, pursuant to the Judicial Department Act of 1965 which 
established the Administrative Office of the Courts. This year also marks a significant revision in for- 
mat and content of the annual report. 

In format, the report is now in regular page size which better accommodates the series of tables 
and text. As to content, data is being published this year — for the first time ~ on ages of cases 
pending in the trial courts as of the end of the year. This new data is possible because of a revised data 
reporting system implemented in 1976, and for the first time we have data which tells us something 
about "case backlog". The subject of case backlog is dealt with in the text of the report, in the sections 
on the superior court and district court divisions. 

Under the revised system of reporting, each case which is fiied in a trial court is reported by its in- 
dividual case number, along with date of filing and other identifying information, to the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts. Each case which is disposed of is similarly reported, with individual 
case number, date of disposition and other identifying information. This information is entered on 
reporting forms daily in the clerks' offices, and these forms are accumulated and mailed each week to 
AOC. Upon receipt in AOC, the forms are checked for completeness and the data is keyed to 
magnetic computer tape. The AOC purchases computer time from the State Department of Ad- 
ministration's Computer Center, to process the data and to produce reports. In substance, the system 
enables AOC to maintain a perpetual pending case inventory on computer file. A weekly total of ap- 
proximately 55,000 case filings and case dispositions are thus reported to the Administrative Office of 
the Courts. 

It has been recognized for sometime that the old system of reporting numbers of cases filed and 
numbers of cases disposed of permitted errors to build up in the pending case figures which were 
carried forward from year to year. It was not possible at state level to check case statistics by in-^ 
dividual case number against the individual case records in the clerks' offices. Following the im- 
plementation of the revised case data reporting system and the taking of special case inventories in the 
clerks' offices, verification was obtained on the number of cases pending as of December 31, 1975 as 
well as the number of cases filed and disposed of during 1976, and the number pending as of Decem- 
ber 31, 1976. It was concluded that pending case figures reported previously for December 31, 1975 
were overstated. Instead of a total of 296,304, the pending case total was 249,939. Therefore, the 
corrected pending case figures, as of January 1, 1976, are shown in the tables contained in the 1976 
Annual Report. 

Appreciation is expressed to the clerks of superior court across the State for their splendid 
cooperation in implementing the improved system of case data reporting. They and their staffs were 
called on to assume extra burdens of work, without additional personnel, simply to get the new 
reporting system in operation. 

To place the present system of data reporting in correct perspective, it is important to emphasize 
that it falls far short of being a full-fledged, up-to-date "computer system" which is sorely needed for 
North Carolina's court system. What we now have is still a manual data reporting system. All of the 
data which the Administrative Office of the Courts obtains from the 100 clerks' offices must be en- 
tered on paper in the clerks' offices, and that paper -- a great volume — transmitted weekly to 
Raleigh by mail from each of the 100 counties. 

With the assistance of some LEA A grant funding, the Administrative Office of the Courts is now 
engaged in an effort to develop a full-fledged information system for the courts, utilizing electronic 
data processing. To implement a complete electronic data information system — one which will per- 
mit data to be entered directly into a computer system from the clerks' offices and which will provide 
local direct access to computer-stored data — will require state appropriated funds, especially for the 
maintenance and operation of such a system once it is designed and implemented on a pilot basis. 



Such a system is needed not onlj to provide adequate information to assess the operation of the 
courts from a statewide perspective, important as that is, hut to provide day-to-day operational 
assistance m each count), lor the clerks of court, for district attorneys, forjudges, and for all other 
personnel in the judicial system. 

The alread) vast volume of records which must he maintained in the court system will inexorably 
increase year after year. The courts will experience greater inefficiencies in the years ahead if elec- 
tronic data processing is not made available to the court system. Such inefficiencies will create 
harriers to the proper administration of justice for each individual who is a participant in a court 
proceeding. Thus, the hope is expressed that future sessions of the General Assembly will recogni/e 
the problem that is growing larger with each passing year and will be persuaded to deal with this 
problem b\ pro\ idmg the necessary state funding for a complete electronic data processing system for 
the courts of North Carolina. 

Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that the Administrative Officer 
of the Courts shall "prepare and submit an annual report on the work of the Judicial Department to 
the Chief Justice, and transmit a copy to each member of the General Assembly; . . ." The statute does 
not specif) the scope or describe the content of the required annual report. Nevertheless, the statutory 
language may he interpreted as requiring, at the minimum, information on the significant work of the 
Judicial Department, leaving to the Administrative Officer, subject to any policy direction of the 
Chief Justice, the determination of precisely what format and content the annual report should have. 
Considering the statutory language as well as what would seem to be practical and desirable in the 
way of an annual report, the following appear to be the principal purposes which the annual report 
ought to serve: 

( 1 ) Provide information and data on the significant work of the Judicial Department, as a matter 
of minimum compliance with G.S. 7A-343. 

(2) Provide information and data useful for short-range administrative or policy decisions con- 
cerning the Judicial Department. 

(3) Provide information and data useful for long-range planning for the Judicial Department. 

(4) Preserve in appropriate context and focus information and data useful for historical study 
and assessment. 

Format as well as content of the annual report will determine whether, and how well, the above- 
stated purposes will be achieved. Equally obvious, these purposes must be achieved with due regard 
to the factor of production and printing costs. 

Apart from case data, this year's Report contains some new sections of comment and informa- 
tion. Some for example, the historical note and the statement on present court system organization 
will not necessarily he repeated in each subsequent annual report. What is sought to be achieved is 
to present relevant data and comment on this year's activity, placed in focus and context for assess- 
ment and understanding. 

It is hoped that the changes in format and content which are reflected in this year's report will, 
lor those who have occasion to use the report, communicate in understandable fashion that which is 
relevant to know or to have convenient access to at some future date. 



September. 1977 



VI 



<5tfe Appellate itufafon 



44 ®lje Appellate StuiBton of ttye (General Court of SuBttce Btfall 
constat of ttje Supreme Court ano tlje Court of Appeals. " 

8. C. Const., Art. 313, &ec. 5 



THE APPELLATE DIVISION 
THE SUPREME COURT 

One hundred and thirty-nine opinions were filed by the Supreme Court in 1976. Of the total, 57 
were civil and 82 were criminal cases. Forty-three percent (23 opinions) of the civil appeals were af- 
firmed and 68 percent (55 opinions) of the criminal appeals were affirmed. In the remaining cases, the 
Supreme Court modified or reversed the decisions from which the appeals were taken. Of the total 
number of appeals, 47 were decisions in which the Supreme Court granted a discretionary review, the 
remaining 92 were appeals as of right. As reported in the North Carolina Reports, the court disposed 
of 294 petitions for certiorari, 10 motions to dismiss, and one motion to rehear. 



JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT 

Chief Justice 

Susie Sharp 



A ssociate Justices 

I. Beverly Fake Dan K. Moore 

Joseph W. Branch J. William Copeland 

J. Frank Huskins James G. Exum, Jr. 



Emergency Justices 

J. Win Pi ess, Jr. 
Wii i iam H. Bobbitt, C.J. 

CARI ISl E W. HlGGINS 



THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Nine hundred and ninety-nine opinions were filed by the Court of Appeals in 1976. Of these 999 
opinions. 510 were in criminal eases and 489 in civil eases (including appeals from the Insurance Com- 
missioner, the Industrial Commission and the Utilities Commission). The court disposed of 
\ .02" motions and petitions in 1976. 



JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Chief Judge 
Walter E. Brock 



Associate Judges 

David M. Britt Earl W. Vaughn 

Naomi E. Morris Robert M. Martin 

Frank M. Parker Edward B. Clark 

Robert A. Hedrick Gerald Arnold 



Emergency Judges 

Raymond B. Mam ard 
Hugh B. Campbei i 



CO 

H 

u 

I— I 
X 
H 

Q 

< 

© 
w 

I— I 

> 

Q 

P 



o 
u 

53 

I 




atye Superior (ftnurt DiuteUm 



**QII|C (General Assemble Bljall, from time to time, biuibe tt|e 
£>tate into a conuenient number of Superior (Enurt jubicial 
biatrtcta anb aJjall prouibe for tl|e election of one or more 
Superior Court Subgea for each, biatrict." 

N. OL OIonBt., Art. 311, £ec. 9(1) 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

Total case activity in the superior courts during 1976, compared with total case activity during the 

preceding four years, is depicted in the graphs which follow. There was a slight decrease in total filings 

- 63,321 in 1976 as compared with 64,424 in 1975. There was also a decrease in the total number of 

dispositions, 58,789 in 1976 as compared with 61,773 in 1975. The number of cases pending at the end 

of 1976 was 33,083 as compared with 28,551 at the end of 1975, an increase of 14.7%. 



TOTAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976) 



NO. OF CASES 

S0.000 



70,000 



60,000 



K).O(X) 



76,590 




ADDED 



(YEAR) 



DISPOSED OF 



TOTAL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
(For Years, 1972-1976) 



NO Of CASI S 



40.000 



35.000 



30.000 



25.000 



20.000 



15,000 



10.000 



5.000 



33,083 




UTILIZATION OF SCHEDULED SUPERIOR COURT 
(For Years, 1972-1976) 



Year 

1972 
1973 

1974 
1975 
1976 



No. Days 
Scheduled 

9,170 

9,542 Vi 

9,846 

11,525 

I 1,268 



No. Days 
Held 

7,496 
7,716 
7,763 Vi 
9,143 
8,897 Vi 



% 


of Scheduled 
Days Held 




81.7 
80.9 



78.8 



79.3 



78.9 



The total number of days of superior court scheduled in 1976 was 1 1,268, compared with I 1,525 in 
. There was also some decrease in the total number of days of court held, 8,897 V: in 1976 as com- 
pared with 9.143 days held in 1975. lor all 100 counties, the percentage of scheduled days of court 
held in 1976 was 78. 9 C ?> compared with 79.39? in 1975. 



SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DOCKET 

Civil case activity in the superior courts during 1976 is compared with civil case activity during 
the preceding four years in the graphs which follow. There was a small decrease in civil case filings - 
10,774 in 1976 as compared with 10,919 in 1975. There was a slight increase in the number of civil case 
dispositions — 9,391 in 1976 as compared with 9,222 in 1975. The number of civil cases pending at the 
end of 1976 was 14,652 as compared with 13,269 pending at the end of 1975, an increase of 10.4% 

Tables are presented which show the distribution of pending civil cases among the counties; the 
ten counties with the largest number of civil cases pending at the end of 1976; the ten counties with the 
highest and the ten with the lowest ratios of dispositions of civil cases to total civil caseloads; and the 
ratios of dispositions of civil cases to total civil caseloads; and the ratios of dispositions of estates and 
of special proceedings to total caseloads in these categories. 

Data is then shown, by judicial districts and by counties, on: ( 1 ) civil cases pending, filed and 
disposed of in 1976; (2) ages of civil cases pending as of December 31, 1976; (3) utilization of civil 
superior court terms; (4) estates cases before the clerks of superior court pending, filed and dis- 
posed of in 1976; (5) ages of estates cases pending as of December 31, 1976; (6) special proceedings 
before the clerks of superior court — pending, filed and disposed of in 1976; and (7) ages of special 
proceedings pending as of December 31, 1976. Special proceedings before the clerks of superior court 
include such matters as foreclosures, involuntary commitments to mental hospitals, adoptions, con- 
demnations of real property under eminent domain, and hearings on incompetency. 

If neither of the parties involved in a civil case is interested in having the case put on the trial 
calendar, it will not likely be calendared. This may explain why there are more than 100 civil cases 
which have been pending in the superior courts for more than 10 years, and why four are shown to 
have been pending for more than 20 years. Special proceedings and estates matters before the clerks 
are also "civil" matters, and the parties involved may not always be interested in bringing them to a 
conclusion. Further, in many of these types of cases, the nature of the case may dictate that it will be 
before the court for many years. This is especially true in estates matters where several are shown to 
have been pending for more than 20 years. An estate case filed on behalf of a minor may properly 
have to remain open for the life of that individual. 

From the standpoint of an efficiently functioning court system, it can be said that there is always 
an underlying public interest in assuring that cases of all types are disposed of promptly, consistent 
with the nature of the case and the rights of the parties involved. In civil matters, it is obvious that the 
court system (and thus the public interest) is not well served by having any such matter carried as an 
open, pending case for several years simply because the parties in such a case permit or tolerate this to 
occur because of disinterest or inattention. At the least, such cases clutter the records and give an 
erroneous picture of the real workload confronting the court system. 

Is there a civil case backlog in North Carolina's superior courts? The answer to this question 
necessarily depends upon one's definition of backlog status. Or, stated another way, within what 
period of time should the superior courts be expected to dispose of any civil case? 

There is no official or generally recognized time standard for the disposition of civil cases in the 
superior courts. The data on ages of pending civil cases (page 16) shows that about 70% of the cases 
were pending more than six months, and 47% of the cases were pending more than one year, with 
20.9% pending more than two years. 

Perhaps, ideally, the superior courts should be able to dispose of any civil case within six months 
after it is filed. Or, perhaps it would be more realistic and in keeping with the developments in most 
civil cases to suggest that a civil case — absent unusual circumstances — should be disposed of within 
a year after the case is filed. 

If a one-year standard were applied to our present situation, it is obvious that one would con- 
clude that there is a substantial backlog of civil cases in our superior courts, with 47% of the total 
number pending for more than one year. Presumably, the most tolerant time standard would place in 
a backlog status those civil cases pending for more than two years. Applying the two-year time stan- 
dard puts almost 21% of the total (3,042 cases out of a total of 14,653) in a "backlog" status. 



No definith e conclusions are suggested at this time as to what should be an appropriate specific 
time standard for the disposition of superior court civil cases. Undoubtedly, this is a matter which will 
receive close attention of court officials, members of the practicing bar, and interested members of the 
public: and in time a more specific standard will evolve, whether officially mandated or not, which 
will provide guidance in this area for assessing the court system performance. 



CIVIL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OE IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

(Eor Years, 1972-1976) 



NO OF CASES 



20,000 



15,000 



1 0.000 



5,000 



10,919 



10,774 




ADDED: 



DISPOSED OE 



CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
(Eor Years, 1972-1976) 



NO. OF CASES 

25,000 - 



20.000 



1 5,000 



10.000 



5,000 



4,652 




DISTRIBl TION OF PENDING SUPERIOR COURT 
CIVIL CASES AMONG THE COUNTIES 

(For Years, 1972-76) 



\umher of 


Less than 


Cases 


50 


Number of 




Counties & 




Year: 1972 


4: 


1973 


41 


1974 


42 


1975 


v 


1976 


«) 



50-100 

JO 

27 

25 
30 
21 



101-200 

15 

i l ) 

21 
18 

v 7 



201-500 



Over 
500 



9 4 

9 4 

7 5 

9 6 

6 6 



TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST SUPERIOR COURT 
CIVIL DOCKETS PENDING AT YEAR END 



County 

* Mecklenburg 
*Wake 
*Guilford 

* Durham 

* Forsyth 

* Buncombe 
*Gaston 
"■Cumberland 

Wayne 

Ncv. Hanover 
si \ IF MEAN 



Pending 

1/1/76 

1 ,603 


Filed 

1,268 


Disposed of 

995 


Pending 

12/31/76 

1,876 


Relation (%) 
of Disposi- 
tions to 
Filings 

78.5 


1,367 


916 


930 


1,353 


101.5 


1 ,005 


716 


639 


1,082 


89.3 


872 


458 


378 


952 


82.5 


482 


630 


396 


716 


62.9 


636 


407 


446 


597 


109.6 


319 


339 


274 


384 


80.8 


293 


251 


183 


361 


72.9 


174 


204 


112 


266 


54.9 


176 


170 


118 


228 


69.4 


133 


108 


94 


147 


87,0 



"Counties that were listed in this table in the 1975 Annual Report. 



10 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH HIGHEST RATIOS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
CIVIL DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Caldwell 
Catawba 
Hoke- 
Madison 
Perquimans 
Robeson 
Lincoln 
Yancey 
Henderson 
Scotland 
STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 


Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


282 


106 


79.7 


318 


105 


76.1 


29 


21 


71.4 


89 


63 


70.8 


4! 


28 


68.3 


316 


208 


65.8 


956 


433 


61,6 


26 


16 


61.5 


534 


327 


61.2 


55 


33 


60.0 


240 


94 


39.2 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH LOWEST RATIOS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
CIVIL DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Vance 

Anson 

Hyde 

Columbus 

Gates 

Dare 

Nash 

Northampton 

Durham 

Wayne 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 


Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


139 


17 


12.2 


S2 


13 


15.9 


16 


3 


18.8 


220 


AH 


21.8 


20 


5 


25.0 


102 


26 


25.5 


268 


72 


26.9 


64 


18 


28.1 


1330 


346 


28.4 


378 


112 


29.6 


240 


94 


39.2 



II 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 
January I, 1976 - December 31, 1976 





Pending 


( ases 


Total 




1976 ( astl 


impositions 




Pending 


Inci 
Dei 
inP 


rease/ 
:rease 










Total 


ending 


1ST DISTRICT 


1 1 76 


Filed, 1976 


Caseload 


Jury 


Judge 


Other 


Dispositions 


12/31/76 


C 


ases 


Camden 


s 


9 


14 





1 


6 


7 


7 


+ 


2 


Chow an 


37 


19 


56 


1 


x 


15 


24 


32 


- 


5 


Currituck 


23 


27 


50 


(' 


4 


15 


19 


H 


+ 


8 


Dare 


-r 


55 


102 





1 


19 


26 


76 


+ 


29 


Gates 


3 


17 


20 








5 


5 


15 


+ 


12 


Pasquotank 


M) 


42 


82 


1 


13 


15 


29 


53 


+ 


1 1 


Perquimans 


28 


13 


41 


2 


1 


25 


28 


13 


- 


15 


TOTAL 


183 


1X2 


365 


4 


M 


inn 


[38 


227 


+ 


44 


:\D DISTRICT 






















Beaufort 


93 


64 


157 


3 


28 


32 


63 


94 


+ 


1 


Hyde 


1 


15 


16 





1 


2 


3 


1 ! 


+ 


12 


Martin 


19 


24 


4< 


it 


10 


6 


16 


27 


+ 


X 


Rrrell 


2 


3 


5 








2 


2 


3 


t 


1 


Washington 


14 


15 


29 


I 


3 


6 


10 


19 


+ 


5 


TOTAL 


129 


121 


250 


4 


42 


4X 


44 


156 


+ 


27 


3RD DISTRICT 






















( arteret 


1') 


73 


192 


1 


IN 


4? 


62 


130 


+ 


1 1 


C raven 


132 


1-11 


273 


11 


33 


52 


96 


177 


+ 


4S 


Pamlico 


29 


18 


47 


2 


6 


16 


24 


23 


- 


6 


Pitt 


109 


143 


252 


X 


44 


4^ 


99 


153 


+ 


44 


TOTAL 


389 


375 


764 


22 


101 


I5X 


2X1 


483 


+ 


f4 


4 Til DISTRICT 






















Duplin 


3! 


50 


81 


1 


19 


1 1 


33 


4X 


+ 


I 7 


l-mcs 


16 


27 


43 


1 


8 


13 


22 


21 


+ 


5 


Onslow 


157 


88 


245 


7 


28 


99 


1 (4 


III 


- 


46 


Sampson 


S! 


78 


161 


3 


58 


42 


83 


78 


- 


5 


TOTAL 


2XT 


243 


5.30 


12 


93 


167 


272 


258 


— 


24 


5TH DISTRICT 






















N'ev. Hanover 


u 


I '0 


346 


10 


27 


81 


1 IX 


228 


+ 


52 


Pender 


45 


13 


sx 





3 


15 


18 


40 


- 


5 


TO! \l 


221 


183 


404 


H) 


JO 


>>6 


136 


268 


+ 


47 


6TH DISTRICT 






















Bertie 


P 


38 


80 





6 


24 


30 


50 


+ 


8 


1 


93 


46 


I !9 


5 


18 


33 


56 


XI 


- 


10 


Hertford 


29 


'1 


50 


3 


4 


8 


15 


35 


+ 


6 


S'i irthampton 


(8 


26 


64 


n 


5 


1 1 


18 


46 


+ 


8 


r of \i 


202 


131 


333 


X 


J3 


7X 


119 


214 


+ 


12 


7TH DISTRICT 






















;ombe 


66 


62 


I 28 


3 


20 


30 


53 


75 


♦ 


9 




157 


1 1 1 


268 


3 


37 


32 


72 


196 


+ 


39 


W iKon 


163 


91 


254 


8 


36 


39 


83 


1 '1 


+ 


X 


IOI \l 


186 


264 


650 


14 


93 


1(11 


208 


442 


1 


S6 



12 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 

1976 Cast Dispositions 





Pending 


Cases 


Total 


STH DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


Filed, 1976 


Caseload 


Greene 


30 


6 


36 


Lenoir 


1 16 


1 15 


231 


Wayne 


174 


204 


378 


TOTAL 


320 


325 


645 


9TH DISTRICT 








Franklin 


53 


^4 


107 


Granville 


66 


26 


92 


Person 


29 


i: 


71 


Vance 


94 


45 


139 


Warren 


55 


54 


109 


TOTAL 


297 


22 i 


518 


WTH DISTRICT 









.lurv 



4 

i 

12 



Wake 



1367 



916 



2283 



18 



.1 udge 

7 
23 
34 
64 



6 
9 

I I 

9 

23 

58 



343 



Other 

9 
46 

71 

126 



24 

25 

I ! 

8 

28 
98 



Total 
Dispositions 

17 

73 
112 
202 



32 
34 
25 
17 
54 
162 



Pending 

12/31/76 

19 
158 
266 
443 



Increase/ 

Decrease 

in Pending 

Cases 

- II 

+ 42 

+ 92 

+ 123 



7s 


+ 


22 


58 


- 


8 


46 


+ 


17 


1 2 1 


f 


2x 


55 






356 


+ 


59 



549 



930 



1353 



14 



I ITU DISTRICT 



Harnett 


181 


110 


291 


4 


32 


93 


129 


162 


- 19 


Johnston 


152 


1 SO 


282 


15 


63 


64 


142 


1 to 


- 12 


Lee 


109 


64 


173 


11 


31 


(0 


72 


101 


- 8 


TOTAL 


442 


304 


746 


30 


126 


187 


343 


403 


- 39 


I2TH DISTRICT 




















Cumberland 


293 


251 


544 


8 


86 


89 


183 


361 


+ 68 


Hoke 


13 


K, 


29 





3 


18 


21 


8 


5 


TOTAL 


306 


267 


573 


X 


X9 


107 


204 


369 


+ 63 


13TH DISTRICT 




















Bladen 


20 


22 


42 





4 


11 


15 


27 


+ 7 


Brunswick 


145 


77 


222 


4 


IS 


57 


7') 


141 


- 2 


Columbus 


1 >4 


96 


220 


8 


l 7 


23 


48 


172 


+ 48 


TOTAL 


289 


195 


484 


12 


39 


91 


142 


342 


+ 53 


I4TH DISTRICT 





















Durham 



872 



458 



1330 



20 



346 



378 



952 



+ 80 



I5TH DISTRICT 



Alamance 


182 


151 


333 


12 


63 


96 


171 


162 


_ 


20 


Chatham 


37 


45 


82 


2 


20 


II 


33 


49 


+ 


12 


Orange 


192 


64 


256 


8 


31 


43 


82 


174 


- 


IS 


TOTAL 


411 


260 


671 


22 


114 


150 


286 


385 


- 


26 


I6TH DISTRICT 






















Robeson 


119 


197 


316 


3 


165 


in 


208 


IDS 


_ 


1 1 


Scotland 


IS 


37 


55 





23 


ID 


33 


22 


+ 


4 


TOTAL 


137 


234 


371 


3 


188 


50 


241 


130 


- 


7 



13 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 





Pending 

1/1/76 


Cases 
Hied. 1976 


Total 
Caseload 




1976 Case Dispositions 




Pending 

12/31/76 


Inc 

lU- 
< 


rease/ 
crease 


I'TH DISTRICT 


Jury 


Judge 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


'ending 
'ases 


Caswell 


5 


1 ) 


IS 








9 


9 


9 


+ 


4 


Rockingham 


77 


130 


207 


\ 


SI 


41 


76 


1 W 


+ 


S4 


Stokes 


12 


35 


47 


1 


17 


? 


20 


27 


+ 


15 


Sum 


65 


101 


166 


6 


5 


52 


63 


103 


t 


!S 


TOTAL 


159 


279 


438 


IS 


53 


104 


168 


270 


+ 


111 


ISTH DISTRICT 






















Guilford 






















Greensboro 


787 


554 


1341 


)6 


173 


312 


521 


820 


+ 


33 


Hieh Point 


218 


162 


380 


10 


A\ 


65 


118 


262 


+ 


44 


TOTAL 


1005 


716 


1721 


46 


216 


377 


639 


1082 


+ 


77 


19TH DISTRICT 






















Cabarrus 


US 


90 


228 


10 


41 


36 


87 


141 


+ 


3 


Montgomery 


27 


U 


42 


3 


8 


14 


25 


17 


- 


10 


Randolph 


114 


96 


210 


5 


53 


49 


S7 


123 


+ 


9 


Rowan 


80 


83 


163 


8 


15 


59 


82 


81 


+ 


1 


TOTAL 


359 


284 


643 


26 


97 


158 


281 


362 


+ 


3 


20TH DISTRICT 






















Anson 


26 


56 


82 


i 


J 


5 


13 


69 


+ 


41 


Moore 


ii4 


50 


1 54 


9 


43 


><> 


7H 


76 


- 


28 


Richmond 


50 


57 


107 


6 


2< 


16 


45 


62 


+ 


P 


Stanly 


56 


33 


89 


I) 


11 


?? 


33 


56 






Union 


107 


94 


201 


2 


37 


56 


MS 


106 


- 


1 


TOTAL 


343 


290 


633 


IS 


121 


125 


264 


369 


+ 


26 


2/57" DISTRICT 























Forsyth 



482 



630 



1112 



V? 



!]Wf 



199 



396 



716 



+ 234 



22 \D DISTRICT 



Alexander 


12 


27 


>,<> 


l 


11 


8 


20 


19 


+ 


7 


Dav idson 


150 


123 


273 


6 


38 


s;s 


102 


1.1 


+ 


21 


Davie 


23 


19 


42 


l 


5 


16 


22 


20 


- 


3 


Iredell 


68 


108 


176 


2 


26 


35 


63 


113 


+ 


45 


TOTAL 


253 


277 


530 


10 


80 


117 


207 


323 


+ 


70 


2JRD DISTRICT 






















Alleghany 


I'y 


21 


40 


2 


9 


10 


21 


19 






Ashe 


8 


16 


24 


2 


5 


4 


II 


13 


+ 


5 


Wilkes 


79 


95 


174 


9 


29 


54 


92 


82 


+ 


3 


Yadkin 


55 


a 


79 


1 


6 


21 


31 


48 


+ 


13 


(01 \l 


141 


176 


317 


17 


49 


m 


[55 


162 


+ 


21 


24 TH DISTRICT 






















'■ 


41 


36 


77 


4 


11 


25 


40 


37 


— 


4 


Madison 


61 


<x 


89 


15 


20 


28 


63 


26 


- 


35 


Mitchell 


52 


21 


71 


3 


11 


20 


34 


39 


- 


1 * 


Watauga 


4: 


' ' 


112 


3 


12 


20 


35 


77 


+ 


32 


Yancey 


14 


12 


26 


1 


1 


14 


16 


III 


- 


4 


roi m 


213 


164 


377 


26 


55 


1(17 


188 


IK<J 


- 


24 



14 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 



January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



1976 Case Dispositions 





Pending 


Cases 


lota! 


2577/ DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


Filed, 1976 


Caseload 


Burke 


97 


210 


)07 


Caldwell 


149 


133 


282 


Catawba 


■ ;■,() 


138 


318 


TOTAL 


426 


|g] 


907 


26TH DISTRICT 








Mecklenburg 


1603 


1268 


2871 


27TH DISTRICT 








Cleveland 


52 




186 


Gaston 


519 


•339 


658 


Lincoln 


55 


57 


1 1? 


TOTAL 


426 


530 


956 


28TH DISTRICT 








Buncombe 


636 


407 


1043 


29TH DISTRICT 








Henderson 


385 


i 19 


534 


McDowell 


49 


JO 


79 


Polk 


14 


23 


37 


Rutherford 


89 


67 


1 56 


Transylvania 


46 


so 


■h 


TOTAL 


583 


319 


902 


iOTH DISTRICT 








Cherokee 


48 


32 


80 


Clay 


2 


4 


6 


Graham 


14 


13 


27 


Haywood 


97 


HO 


177 


Jackson 


lis 


74 


189 


Macon 


7 3 


58 


131 


Swain 


53 


1 ! 


66 


TOTAL 


402 


274 


676 


STATE TOTA L 


13269 


10774 


24043 



Jury 

I? 
3 

i 



84 



12 

4 

24 



;o 



! 

7 
I 

7 


in 



i 
i 

2 
5 

2 

4 

4 
19 

602 



Judge 

55 

14 

46 

115 



479 



32 
I 16 

28 
176 



:«.•) 



317 

3 

5 

38 

30 

393 



10 
2 

5 

'0 

u 

I ! 

21 

122 

3842 



Total 
Other Dispositions 



ill 

;(9 

55 

194 



432 



50 
1 46 

37 
233 



i 5 1 



7 
28 

8 
31 
18 
92 



17 

Q 

5 
(6 
2^ 
24 

4 
1 1 1 

4947 



i 17 

!■'!(, 

105 
328 



995 



90 

:7J 
433 



446 



J27 
38 
14 
?.', 
18 

503 



28 

3 

12 
71 
68 

4i 

2 l < 

252 

9391 



Increase/ 

Decrease 

Pending in Pending 

12/31/76 Cases 



190 
176 
213 
579 



1876 



597 



+ 93 

+ 27 

+ 33 

+ 153 



+ 273 



96 


+ 44 


384 


4- 65 


43 


- 12 


523 


+ 97 



\9 



207 


- 178 


41 


- 8 


, J 


+ 9 


80 


-* 9 


48 


+ 2 


399 


- 184 



52 


1- 


4 


3 


+ 


I 


15 


+ 


t 


106 


i 


9 


121 


+ 


6 


)0 


I 


17 


37 


- 


16 


424 


t 


22 



14652 



+ 1383 



15 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



ISTDISTRICT 

Camden 

Percentage of Total 
Chowan 

Percentage of Total 
Currituck 

Percentage of Total 
Dare 

Percentage of Total 
Gates 

Percentage of Total 
Pasquotank 

Percentage of Total 
Perquimans 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



Total I ess than 30-90 91-180 

Pending 30 Days Days Days 



14.3 28.6 

32 2 4 5 

6.3 12.5 15.6 

31 3 8 

9.7 25.8 

76 8 4 15 

10.5 5.3 19.7 

15 3 2 

20.0 13.3 

53 4 3 10 

7.5 5.7 18.9 
13 2 1 

15.4 7.7 

227 15 21 41 

6.6 9.3 18.1 



181 Days 1 Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

To 1 Year To I Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



28.6 

5 
15.6 

5 

16.1 

13 

17.1 

3 

20.0 

14 

26.4 

5 

38.5 

47 

20.7 



14.3 



7 

22.6 

19 

25.0 

4 

26.7 

14 

26.4 

5 

38.5 

50 

22.0 



6 

18.8 
4 

12.9 
14 

18.4 
2 

13.3 
8 

15.1 



34 
15.0 



14.3 
1 

3.1 
1 

3.2 
2 

2.6 



4 
12.5 

3 
9.7 

1 
1.3 



5 
2.2 



8 

3.5 



5 
15.6 



1 
6.7 



6 

2.6 



2SD DISTRICT 



Beaufort 
Percentage of Total 


94 


4 
4.3 


7 
7.4 


16 
17.0 


19 
20.2 


10 
10.6 


15 
16.0 


12 
12.8 


4 
4.3 


7 
7.4 




H\de 
Percentage of Total 


13 


1 

7.7 


1 

7.7 




10 
76.9 






1 

7 7 








Martin 

Percentage of Total 


27 


3 
11.1 


5 
18.5 


5 
18.5 


4 
14.8 


5 
18.5 


3 
111 


1 

3.7 






1 
3.7 


Tyrrell 

Percentage of Total 
Washington 

Percentage of Total 


3 

1') 




1 

33.3 


2 
66.7 

4 
21.1 


6 
31.6 


4 
21.1 


3 
15.8 


2 
10.5 








District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


is<> 


S 
5.1 


14 
9.0 


27 
17.3 


39 
25.0 


19 

12.2 


21 
13.5 


16 

10.3 


4 

2.6 


7 
4.5 


1 
0.6 


3RD DISTRICT 
























Carteret 

Percentage of Total 


130 


3 
2.3 


22 
16.9 


17 
13.1 


29 
22.3 


37 
28.5 


14 
10.8 


4 

! 1 


4 
3 1 






( raven 

Percentage of Total 


177 


7 
4.0 


26 
14.7 


27 
15.3 


34 
19.2 


34 
19.2 


28 
15.8 


1 
0.6 


20 
11.3 






Pamlico 

Percentage of Total 


23 


4 

17.4 


1 
4.3 


4 
17.4 


3 
13.0 


6 
26.1 


2 
8.7 


1 
4.3 


2 
8.7 






Pitt 

Percentage of Total 


153 


11 

7 2 


22 
14.4 


28 
18.3 


32 
20.9 


29 
19.0 


18 
11.8 


7 
4.6 


6 
3.9 






District Totals 
Percentage of Total 


483 


25 
52 


71 
14.7 


76 
15.7 


98 
20.3 


106 
21.9 


62 
12.8 


13 

2.7 


J2 
6.6 






4 Til DISTRICT 
























Duplin 

Percentage ol 1 otal 


4X 


4 

8.3 


5 
10.4 


3 
6.3 


10 

20.8 


9 
18.8 


X 
16.7 


3 
6.3 


6 

12.5 






1 ne 
Percentage ol Total 


l\ 


3 
14.3 


6 
28.6 


5 
23.8 


3 

14.3 


3 
14.3 


1 
4.8 










Percentage of I otal 


1 1 


6 

' 1 


15 
13.5 


13 
11.7 


26 
23.4 


30 
27.0 


12 
10.8 


5 
4.5 


1 
0.9 


3 

2 7 




Percentage of Total 


78 


4 

5 1 


1 1 

1 


10 
12.8 


26 
33.3 


16 
20.5 


6 

7.7 


2 
2.6 


3 
3.8 






District Totals 
Percentage of Total 


2>H 


1" 


37 
14.3 


il 
12.0 


65 

25.2 


58 

22.5 


27 
10.5 


HI 
J.9 


III 


1.2 





16 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 

, T „ niQTPl/^T To,al Lessthan 30-90 91-1S0 181 Days 1 Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

J 1 tl Ulb I KH. I Pending 30 Days Days Days To 1 Year To 2 Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 

New Hanover 228 14 35 30 45 58 34 7 4 1 

Percentage of Total 6.1 15.4 13.2 19.7 25.4 14.9 3.1 1.8 0.4 

Pender 40 4 6 11 9 4 6 

Percentage of Total 10.0 15.0 27.5 22.5 10.0 15.0 

District Totals 268 14 35 34 51 69 43 11 10 ! 

Percentage of Total 5.2 13.1 12.7 19.0 25.7 16.0 4.1 3.7 0.4 

6TH DISTRICT 



Bertie 50 

Percentage of Total 
Halifax 83 

Percentage of Total 
Hertford 35 

Percentage of Total 
Northampton 46 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 214 

Percentage of Total 
777/ DISTRICT 

Edgecombe 75 

Percentage of Total 
Nash 196 

Percentage of Total 
Wilson 171 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 442 

Percentage of Total 

8TH DISTRICT 



Greene 

Percentage of Total 
Lenoir 

Percentage of Total 
Wayne 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 

9TH DISTRICT 

Franklin 

Percentage of Total 
Granville 

Percentage of Total 
Person 

Percentage of Total 
Vance 

Percentage of Total 
Warren 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



3 


6 


2 


8 


9 


10 


1 


7 


4 


6.0 


12.0 


4 


16.0 


18.0 


20.0 


2.0 


14.0 


8.0 


2 


6 


7 


21 


14 


20 


1 


.9 


3 


2.4 


7.2 


8.4 


25.3 


16.9 


24.1 


12 


10.8 


3.6 


3 


4 


4 


5 


13 


3 




3 




X (, 


11.4 


11.4 


14.3 


37.1 


8.6 




8.6 




3 




8 


8 


12 


8 


1 


6 




6.5 




17.4 


17.4 


26.1 


17.4 


2.2 


13.0 




II 


16 


21 


42 


48 


41 


3 


25 


7 


5.1 


7.5 


9.8 


19.6 


22.4 


19.2 


1.4 


11.7 


3 J 


4 


8 


6 


22 


17 


14 


4 






5.3 


10.7 


8.0 


29.3 


22.7 


18.7 


5.3 






8 


17 


32 


29 


35 


49 


19 


6 


1 


41 


8.7 


16.3 


14.8 


17.9 


25.0 


9.7 


3.1 


0.5 


5 


11 


14 


32 


31 


66 


4 


8 




2.9 


6.4 


8.2 


18.7 


18.1 


38.6 


2.3 


4.7 




17 


36 


52 


83 


83 


129 


27 


14 


1 


3.8 


8.1 


11.8 


18.8 


18.8 


29.2 


6.1 


3.2 


0.2 



19 


1 




2 


3 


7 


4 


2 










5.3 




10.5 


15.8 


36.8 


21.1 


10.5 








158 


6 


18 


18 


44 


31 


23 


5 


6 


6 


1 




3.8 


11.4 


11.4 


27.8 


19.6 


14.6 


3.2 


3.8 


3.8 


0.6 


266 


10 


22 


25 


60 


80 


42 


18 


8 


1 






3.8 


8.3 


9.4 


22.6 


30.1 


15.8 


6.8 


3.0 


0.4 




443 


17 


40 


45 


107 


118 


69 


25 


14 


7 


1 




3.8 


9.0 


10.2 


24.2 


26.6 


15.6 


5.6 


3.2 


1.6 


0.2 



75 


3 


5 


II 


10 


30 


15 


1 








4.0 


(> 7 


14.7 


13.3 


40.0 


20.0 


1.3 






58 


1 


5 


7 


5 


12 


15 


4 


7 


2 




1 7 


8.6 


12.1 


8.6 


20.7 


25.9 


6.9 


12.1 


5.4 


46 


1 


11 


9 


12 


10 


2 


1 








2.2 


23.9 


19.6 


26.1 


21.7 


4.3 


2.2 






122 


1 


8 


12 


12 


27 


22 


18 


22 






0.8 


6.6 


<>.X 


9.8 


22.1 


18.0 


14.8 


18.0 




55 


1 


7 


2 


2 


7 






36 






1.8 


12.7 


3.6 


3.6 


12.7 






65.5 




356 


7 


36 


41 


41 


86 


54 


24 


65 


2 




2.0 


10.1 


11.5 


11.5 


24.2 


15.2 


6.7 


18.3 


0.6 



17 



\GES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 

Total Ussthan 30-90 91-180 181 Days 1 Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years lOYears Grealer 

!0TH DISTRICT Pending 30 Days Days Days To 1 Year To2 Years To4Years TooYears To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



Wake 


1353 


63 


139 


148 


296 


443 


228 


31 


5 




Percentage of Total 




4.7 


10.3 


10.9 


21.9 


32.7 


16.9 


2.3 


4 




District Totals 


1353 


63 


139 


148 


296 


443 


228 


n 


5 




Percentage of Total 




4.7 


1(U 


10.9 


21.9 


32.7 


16.9 


2J 


0.4 




I1TH DISTRICT 






















Harnett 


162 


9 


Us 


16 


10 


54 


24 


x 


'. 




Percentage of Total 




5.6 


11.1 


9.9 


18.5 


33.3 


14.8 


4') 


I 9 




Johnston 


140 


8 


6 


24 


32 


35 


32 


3 






Percentage of Total 




5.7 


4 ! 


17.1 


22.9 


25.0 


22.9 


2.1 






Lee 


101 


3 


5 


11 


11 


19 


36 


x 


X 




Percentage of Total 




5.0 


5.0 


10.9 


10.9 


18.8 


35.6 


7.9 


7.9 




District Totals 


403 


2(1 


2i 


5! 


73 


108 


92 


19 


11 




Percentage of Total 




5.0 


7.2 


12.7 


18.1 


26.8 


22.8 


4.7 


2.7 




I2TH DISTRICT 






















Cumberland 


561 


11 


42 


43 


100 


108 


4') 


6 


2 




Percentage of Total 




(il 


11.6 


11.9 


27.7 


29.9 


13.6 


1.7 


0<> 




Hoke 


8 




2 


2 


3 




1 








Percentage of Total 






25.0 


25.0 


37.5 




12.5 








District Totals 


369 


11 


44 


45 


103 


108 


50 


A 


2 




Percentage of Total 




3.0 


11.9 


12.2 


27.9 


29.3 


13.6 


8.6 


0.5 




liTH DISTRICT 






















Bladen 


27 


1 


4 


3 


10 


8 


1 








Percentage of Total 




3.7 


14.8 


11.1 


37.0 


29.6 


3.7 








Brunswick 


14! 


5 


18 


22 


23 


38 


20 


14 


2 


I 


Percentage of Total 




3.5 


12.6 


15.4 


16.1 


26.6 


14.0 


9.8 


1 4 


0.7 


Columbus 


172 


8 


14 


20 


38 


36 


39 


4 


13 




Percentage of Total 




4 7 


X 1 


11.6 


22.1 


20.9 


22.7 


2 l 


7.6 




District Totals 


342 


14 


s6 


45 


71 


82 


60 


18 


IS 


1 


Percentage of Total 




4 1 


10.5 


13.2 


20.8 


24.0 


17.5 


5.3 


4.4 


0.3 


NTH DISTRICT 






















Durham 


')S2 


34 


74 


87 


191 


188 


217 


84 


4 


73 


Percentage of Total 




3.6 


7.8 


9 l 


20.1 


19.7 


22.8 


XX 


4 


7.7 


District Totals 


952 


14 


74 


HI 


191 


188 


217 


K4 


4 


73 


Percentage of Total 




J.6 


7.8 


9.1 


20.1 


19.7 


22.8 


8.8 


0.4 


7.7 


15TH DISTRICT 























Alamance 162 9 15 22 56 41 II 4 2 , 2 

Percentage of Total 5.6 9.3 13.6 34.6 25.3 6.8 2.5 1.2 1.2 

Chatham 

Percentage of Total 
Orange 

Percentage of Total 
District totals 385 16 48 48 105 95 61 6 4 2 

Percentage of Total 4.2 12.5 12.5 27.3 24.7 15.8 1.6 1.0 0.5 



If, 2 


9 


15 


22 


56 


41 


M 


4 


2 




S(, 


9 ! 


13.6 


34.6 


25.3 


6.8 


2.5 


1.2 


49 


2 


10 


4 


14 


11 


4 


2 


2 




4 1 


20.4 


8.2 


28.6 


22.4 


X 2 


4.1 


4 1 


174 


5 


23 


22 


35 


43 


46 








2.9 


13.2 


12.6 


20.1 


24.7 


26.4 






)85 


16 


48 


48 


105 


95 


61 


6 


4 




4.2 


12.5 


12.5 


27.3 


24.7 


15.8 


1.6 


1.0 



18 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



16TH DISTRICT 

Robeson 

Percentage of Total 
Scotland 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



I olal 
Pending 

108 



130 



Less (han 
30 Days 

5 
4.6 



5 
J.8 



30-90 
Day*. 

8 

7.4 

4 

18.2 

12 

9.2 



"Jl-180 
Days 

18 

16.7 

2 

9.1 

20 

15.4 



181 Days I Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

To 1 Year To 2 Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



33 

30.6 

5 

22.7 

38 

29.2 



25 

23.1 

9 

40.9 

34 
26.2 



17 

15.7 

1 

4 5 

18 

13.8 



2 
1.9 



2 
1 5 



4.5 

I 

0.8 



17TH DISTRICT 

Caswell 

Percentage of Total 
Rockingham 

Percentage of Total 
Stokes 

Percentage of Total 

Surry 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



9 


1 

111 


3 
33.3 


1 

11.1 


1 
III 


2 
22.2 


1 
11. 1 




i H 


6 
4.6 


15 
11.5 


32 
24.4 


45 
34.4 


28 
21.4 


4 

VI 


1 

ox 


27 




3 
111 


5 
18.5 


7 
25.9 


10 
37.0 


1 

3.7 


1 

! 7 


103 


5 
4.9 


15 
14.6 


16 

15.5 


30 
29.1 


27 
26.2 


7 
6.8 


2 
I 9 


270 


12 

4.4 


36 
13.3 


54 
20.0 


83 
30.7 


67 
24.8 


13 
4.8 


4 
1.5 



I 
1 1) 

1 

0.4 



18TH DISTRICT 

Guilford 

Percentage of Total 
High Point 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



816 


39 


67 


106 


154 


269 


144 


30 


3 


4 




4.8 


8.2 


13.0 


18.9 


33.0 


17.6 


! 7 


0.4 


s 


267 


X 


28 


18 


59 


81 


41 


24 


7 


1 




J.O 


10.5 


6.7 


22.1 


30.3 


15.4 


9.0 


2.6 


4 


1083 


47 


95 


[24 


213 


350 


185 


54 


HI 


5 




4J 


B.8 


1 4 


19.7 


32.3 


17.1 


5.0 


0.9 


0.5 



I9TH DISTRICT 

Cabarrus 

Percentage of Total 
Montgomery 

Percentage of Total 
Randolph 

Percentage of Total 
Rowan 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



141 


3 


14 


15 


32 


54 


19 


4 






2.1 


9 9 


10.6 


22.7 


38.3 


13.5 


2.8 




17 


1 


1 


3 


3 


5 


4 








5.9 


5.9 


17.6 


17.6 


29.4 


23.5 






123 


X 


20 


14 


25 


45 


5 


4 


2 




6 5 


16.3 


11.4 


20.3 


36.6 


4 1 


3.3 


1.6 


81 


8 


12 


22 


18 


14 


5 


2 






9.9 


14.8 


27.2 


22.2 


17.3 


6.2 


2.5 




362 


20 


47 


54 


78 


118 


33 


HI 


2 




5.5 


13.0 


14.9 


21.5 


32.6 


9.1 


2 H 


0.6 



20TH DISTRICT 

Anson 

Percentage of Total 
Moore 

Percentage of Total 
Richmond 

Percentage of Total 
Stanly 

Percentage of Total 
Union 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



69 


2 
2.9 


18 
26.1 


9 
13.0 


19 

27.5 


15 
21.7 


5 
7 2 


1 

1 4 




76 


3 
3.9 


10 
13.2 


12 
15.8 


19 
25.0 


20 
26.3 


9 
11.8 


1 
1.3 


2 
2.6 


62 


2 
3.2 


5 

X 1 


14 
22.6 


19 
30.6 


17 
27.4 


4 
6.5 




1 

l 6 


56 


6 
10.7 


7 
12.5 


6 
10.7 


12 
21.4 


13 
23.2 


11 
19.6 


1 
1.8 




106 


4 


19 
17.9 


20 
18.9 


24 
22.6 


26 
24.5 


11 
10.4 


2 
1.9 




369 


17 

4.6 


59 
16.0 


61 

16.5 


93 

25.2 


91 

24.7 


40 
10.8 


5 
1.4 


3 
0.8 



19 



AGES OF CIVIL CASKS PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



:!ST DISTRICT 

Forsyth 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



1 o(al Less than 30-90 

Tending -Ml Da>s l)a>s 



-|(> 



716 



43 
6.0 
43 

6.0 



90 
12.6 

90 
12.6 



fl-INO 
Days 

89 
12.4 

89 
12.4 



INI l)a>s 
1 o I N ear 

163 
22.8 

163 
22.8 



1 Year 
1 o 2 Years 

192 
26.8 

192 
26.8 



2 Year- 
To 4 Years 

102 
14.2 

102 
14.2 



4 Years 
To6 Year: 

20 
2.8 

20 
2.8 



6 Y ears 10 Years Greater 

I o 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



16 

2.2 
16 

2.2 



(I 1 

1 
0.1 



::.\p DISTRICT 

Alexander 

Percentage of Total 
Davidson 

Percentage of Total 
Davie 

Percentage of Total 
Iredell 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



1" 


2 
10.5 


2 
10.5 


3 
15.8 


7 
36.8 


1 

5.3 


4 
21.1 


171 


3 
1.8 


21 
12.3 


24 
14.0 


51 
29.8 


41 
24.0 


15 
8.8 


20 




4 
20.0 


5 
25.0 


2 
10.0 


7 
35.0 


1 
5.0 


113 


10 

s s 


19 
16.8 


20 

17.7 


27 
23.9 


23 
20.4 


14 
12.4 


323 


1? 

4.6 


46 
14.2 


52 
16.1 


87 
26.9 


72 
22.3 


34 
10.5 



5 


11 


2.9 


6 4 




1 




so 


5 


12 


1.5 


3.7 



2JRD DISTRICT 

Alleghany 

Percentage of Total 
Ashe 

Percentage of Total 
Wilkes 

Percentage of Total 
Yadkin 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



19 


1 

5.3 


6 
31.6 


2 
10.5 


6 
31.6 


2 
10.5 


2 
10.5 




13 




2 
15.4 


1 

77 


8 
61.5 


1 

7.7 


1 

7 7 




82 


4 

4') 


11 

13.4 


23 
28.0 


25 
30.5 


18 
22.0 


1 
1.2 




4X 


2 
4 2 


8 
16.7 


11 
22.9 


15 
31.3 


7 
14.6 


3 
6.3 


1 
2.1 


162 


7 
4.3 


27 
16.7 


37 
22.8 


54 

33.3 


28 
17.3 


7 
4.3 


1 

0.6 



1 

2 I 

1 

0.6 



24 TH DISTRICT 

Aver) 

Percentage of Total 
Madison 

Percentage of Total 
Mitchell 

Percentage of Total 
Wjtauga 

Percentage of Total 
Yancey 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



37 


3 

8 1 


10 
27.0 


2 

S4 


13 

35.1 


4 
10.8 


5 
13.5 


26 


4 
15.4 


1 

3.8 


5 
19.2 


5 
19.2 


10 
38.5 


1 

l 8 


!9 


2 
5 1 


3 

7.7 


4 
10.3 


3 

7 7 


20 
51.3 


7 
17.9 


77 


10 
13.0 


32 
41.6 


6 
7.8 


10 
13.0 


13 
16.9 


4 

5.2 


in 




2 
20.0 


2 
20.0 


4 
40.0 


2 
20.0 




189 


19 
10.1 


48 
25.4 


19 
10.1 


35 
18.5 


49 

25.9 


17 

9.0 



2 
2.6 



2 
1.1 



25TH DISTRICT 

Burke 

Percentage of Total 
( aldwell 

Percentage of Total 
( ataw ba 

Percentage of Total 
District lotals 

Percentage of Total 



190 


22 


90 


26 


33 


15 


4 






11.6 


47.4 


13.7 


17.4 


7 9 


2.1 




i, 


9 


16 


33 


39 


39 


37 


2 




' 1 


9 1 


18.8 


22.2 


22.2 


21.0 


1 1 


21 ! 


9 


24 


27 


49 


68 


33 


3 




i 2 


11.3 


12.7 


23.0 


31.9 


15.5 


1.4 


579 


4(1 


130 


86 


121 


122 


74 


5 




6.9 


22.5 


14.9 


20.9 


21.1 


12.8 


0.9 



I 

0.6 



I 
0.2 



20 



ACES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



26TH DISTRICT 

Mecklenburg 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



Total 
Pending 


Less than 
M> Days 


30-*) 
Days 


91-180 
Days 


1X1 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To 6 Years 


6 Years 
To 10 Years 


10 Years 
To 20 Years 


(Greater 

Than 20 Years 


1876 


117 


227 


286 


480 


498 


198 


42 


25 


3 






6.2 


12.1 


15.2 


25.6 


10.6 


2.2 


1.3 


0.2 






1876 


117 


227 


286 


480 


498 


198 


42 


25 


5 






6.2 


12.1 


15.2 


25.6 


26.5 


10.6 


2.2 


1.3 


0.2 





27TH DISTRICT 

Cleveland 

Percentage of Total 
Gaston 

Percentage of Total 
Lincoln 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



96 


8 


12 


16 


35 


17 


X 








8.3 


12.5 


16.7 


36.5 


17.7 


x 3 






384 


21 


47 


61 


106 


103 


36 


4 


4 




6.0 


12.2 


15.9 


27.6 


6.8 


9.4 


1 (i 


1.0 


41 


2 


10 


12 


16 


2 




1 






4.7 


23.3 


27.9 


37.2 


4.7 




2.3 




523 


33 


69 


89 


157 


122 


44 


5 


4 




6 J 


13.2 


17.0 


30.0 


23.3 


8.4 


1.0 


0.8 



28TH DISTRICT 

Buncombe 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



597 


35 


S4 


82 


150 


215 


sx 


2 


1 




5 9 


9.0 


13.7 


25.1 


36.0 


9.7 


0.3 


0.2 


597 


35 


54 


82 


150 


215 


58 


2 


I 




5.9 


9.0 


13.7 


25.1 


36.0 


9.7 


03 


0.2 



29TH DISTRICT 

Henderson 

Percentage of Total 
McDowell 

Percentage of Total 
Polk 

Percentage of Total 
Rutherford 

Percentage of Total 
Transylvania 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



207 


9 

4.3 


41 
19.8 


32 
15.5 


36 

17.4 


61 
29.5 


13 
6.3 


2 
1 




12 
5.8 


l 
0.5 


41 


4 
9.8 


2 
4') 


11 
26.8 


8 
19.5 


12 
29.3 


4 
9.8 








» 


21 




3 
13.0 


3 
13.0 


3 
13.0 


5 
21.7 


3 
13.0 




6 
26.1 






XI) 


s 
6 J 


11 

13.8 


10 
12.5 


24 
30.0 


25 
31.3 


4 
5.0 


1 

1.3 








4X 


6 
12.5 


8 
16.7 


9 
18.8 


13 
27.1 


8 
16.7 


4 

X .1 










399 


24 
6 .11 


65 
16.3 


65 
16.3 


84 
21.1 


111 

27.8 


2K 
7.0 


3 
0.8 


6 
1.5 


12 
3.0 


1 
03 



30TH DISTRICT 

Cherokee 

Percentage of Total 
Clay 

Percentage of Total 
Graham 

Percentage of Total 
Haywood 

Percentage of Total 
Jackson 

Percentage of Total 
Macon 

Percentage of Total 
Swain 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 

STATE TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 



52 


4 


1 


4 


11 


27 


4 




1 




3 


7 7 


1 9 


7.7 


21.2 


51.9 


7.7 




1 'J 










1 
33.3 


1 
33.3 


1 

33.3 








15 






1 


5 


3 


3 


3 












6.7 


33.3 


20.0 


20.0 


20.0 






106 


7 


11 


25 


23 


22 


13 


3 


2 






6.6 


10.4 


23.6 


21.7 


20.8 


12.3 


2.8 


1.9 




121 


11 


3 


25 


27 


28 


21 


5 


1 






9 1 


2.5 


20.7 


22.3 


23.1 


17.4 


4 1 


0.8 




90 


6 


7 


19 


15 


14 


24 


4 


1 






6.7 


7 x 


21.1 


16.7 


15.6 


26.7 


4 4 


1 1 




37 


5 


4 


1 


2 


6 


7 


7 


5 






13.5 


10.8 


2.7 


5.4 


16.2 


18.9 


18.9 


13.5 




424 


33 


lb 


75 


84 


101 


73 


22 


10 






7.8 


5 1 


17.7 


19.8 


23.8 


17.2 


5.2 


2.4 




653 


756 


1707 


1985 


3332 


3831 


2112 


480 


313 


131 




5.2 


11.6 


13.5 


22.7 


26.1 


14.4 


3.3 


2 1 


0.9 



21 



UTILIZATION OF CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS 
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

1976 Calendar Year 





Days 


Davs 


Days 


% 


1STDISTRICT 


Scheduled 


Held 


I'nused 


Used 


Camden 


5 


2 


3 


40.0 


Chowan 


10 


10 





100.0 


Currituck 


in 


3 


7 


30.0 


Dare 


15 


10 


5 


66.6 


Gates 


5 


1 


4 


]()0 


Pasquotank 


'n 


19 V; 


10 Vi 


65.0 


Perquimans 


15 


5 


10 


33.3 


TOTAL 


90 


50 '2 


39 "2 


56.1 


2ND DISTRICT 










Beaufort 


35 


19 


16 


54.2 


H\de 


4 


2 


2 


50.0 


Martin 


20 


s 


12 


40.0 


Tyrrell 





:i 





00.0 


Washington 


2 


2 





100.0 


TOTAL 


01 


31 


JO 


50.8 


3RD DISTRICT 










Carteret 


22 


12 


III 


54.5 


Craven 


55 


36 


19 


65.4 


Pamlico 


id 


8Vi 


l'/2 


85.0 


Pitt 


^2 


39 '/2 


12 Vi 


75.9 


TOTAL 


139 


96 


43 


69.0 


4TH DISTRICT 










Duplin 


25 


12'/2 


121/2 


50.0 


Jones 


10 


4 


6 


40.0 


Onslow 


45 


27 


IS 


60.0 


Sampson 


15 


10 


5 


66.6 


TOTAL 


95 


53 Vi 


41 Vj 


56.3 


577/ DISTRICT 










New Hanover 


70 


59 Vi 


10 Vi 


85.0 


Pender 


10 


2'/2 


IVi 


25.0 


TOTAL 


80 


62 


18 


77.5 


6TH DISTRICT 










Bertie 


X 


5 


i 


62.5 


Halifax 


10 


5 


5 


50.0 


Hertford 


15 


3 Vi 


11 Vi 


23.3 


Northampton 


12 


3 


9 


25.0 


TOTAL 


45 


16 Vi 


28 Vi 


36.6 


777/ DISTRICT 










Edgecombe 


10 


18'/2 


2P/2 


46.2 


Nash 


'i 


25 


25 


50.0 


Wilson 


40 


25 


15 


62.5 


TOTAL 


[30 


68 Vj 


61'/! 


52.6 





Days 


Days 


Days 


% 


8TH DISTRICT 


Scheduled 


Held 


Unused 


Used 


Greene 


10 


8 


2 


80.0 


I enoii 


40 


21 Vi 


18 Vi 


53.7 


Wayne 


55 


47 


8 


85.4 


TOTAL 


105 


76 Vi 


28 Vi 


72.8 


9TH DISTRICT 










Franklin 


15 


8 


7 


53.3 


Granville 


15 


6'/2 


8Vi 


43.3 


Person 


10 


5 


5 


50.0 


Vance 


20 


11 Vi 


8'/2 


57.5 


Warren 


15 


3'/2 


11 VS 


23.3 


TOTAL 


7S 


34 Vi 


40 Vi 


46.0 


10TH DISTRICT 











Wake 



/ / TH DISTRICT 



Din ham 



I5TH DISTRICT 



210 



133 



165 Vi 



I14V2 



44 Vi 78.8 



Harnett 


55 


37 


18 


67.2 


Johnston 


50 


45 


5 


90.0 


Lee 


10 


26 Vi 


3Vi 


88.3 


TOTAL 


135 


108 Vj 


26-/2 


80.3 


/ 2TH DISTRICT 










Cumberland 


50 


38 


12 


76.0 


Hoke 


5 


1 


4 


20.0 


TOTAL 


55 


39 


16 


70.9 


I3TH DISTRICT 










Bladen 


16 


11 Vi 


4'/2 


71.8 


Brunswick 


10 


IVi 


2Vi 


75.0 


Columbus 


35 


26 Vi 


8'/2 


75.7 


lOTAL 


61 


45 Vi 


15 Vi 


74.5 


NTH DISTRICT 











18V2 



86.0 



Alamance 


85 


64 Vi 


20 Vi 


75.8 


Chatham 


20 


15V2 


4Vi 


77.5 


Orange 


50 


39 


II 


78.0 


TOTAL 


155 


119 


3<> 


76.7 


I6TH DISTRICT 










Robeson 


58 


38 


20 


65.5 


Scotland 


15 


4'/2 


10 Vi 


30.0 


TOTAL 


7.'. 


42 Vi 


30 Vi 


58.2 



22 



UTILIZATION OF CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS 
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

1976 Calendar Year 



17TH DISTRICT 



Days 

Scheduled 



Davs 
Held 



Days % 
Unused Used 



Caswell 


10 


6Vi 


3 '/2 


65.0 


Rockingham 


50 


34 Vi 


15 l /2 


69.0 


Stokes 


20 


lOVi 


9Vi 


52.5 


Surry 


35 


20 


15 


57.1 


TOTAL 


115 


71 Vi 


43 Vi 


62.1 


1STH DISTRICT 











Guilford 



1 9TH DISTRICT 



Forsyth 



22ND DISTRICT 



252 



211 Vi 



210 



168 



40 Vi 83.9 



Cabarrus 


55 


45 Vi 


9'/2 


82.7 


Montgomery 


10 


9 


1 


90.0 


Randolph 


60 


50 Vi 


9'/2 


84.1 


Rowan 


65 


52 


13 


80.0 


TOTAL 


190 


157 


33 


82.6 


20TH DISTRICT 










Anson 


20 


15 


5 


75.0 


Moore 


25 


17 Va 


7'/2 


70.0 


Richmond 


JO 


20 


10 


666 


Stanly 


15 


8 


7 


53.3 


Union 


4S 


27 Vi 


!7Vi 


61.1 


TOTAL 


135 


88 


47 


65.1 


2 1ST DISTRICT 











Vi 



80.0 



Alexander 


15 


6 


9 


40.0 


Davidson 


55 


43 Vi 


11 Vi 


79.0 


Davie 


10 


6 


4 


60.0 


Iredell 


so 


31 Vi 


18Vi 


63.0 


TOTAL 


130 


87 


43 


66.9 


23RD DISTRICT 










Alleghany 


10 


8Vi 


1 Vi 


85.0 


Ashe 


12 


7 


5 


58.3 


Wilkes 


50 


33 Vi 


16Vi 


67.0 


Yadkin 


17 


11 


6 


64.7 


TOTAL 


89 


60 


29 


67.4 





Days 


Days 


Days 


% 


24TH DISTRICT 


Scheduled 


Held 


Unused 


Used 


Avery 


IS 


7Vi 


7Vi 


50.0 


Madison 


so 


28 


22 


56.0 


Mitchell 


15 


lOVi 


4V4 


70.0 


Watauga 


10 


9 


1 


90.0 


Yancey 


12 


7 


5 


58.3 


TOTAL 


102 


6: 


40 


60.7 


25TH DISTRICT 










Burke 


25 


24 


1 


96.0 


Caldwell 


60 


52 


8 


86.6 


Catawba 


50 


38 Vi 


HVi 


77.0 


TOTAL 


135 


114 Vi 


20 Vi 


84.8 


26TH DISTRICT 










Mecklenburg 


440 Vi 


384 


56 Vi 


87.1 


27TH DISTRICT 










Cleveland 


50 


28 Vi 


21 Vi 


57.5 


Gaston 


102 


80 


22 


78.4 


Lincoln 


2S 


17 


8 


68.0 


TOTAL 


177 


125 Vi 


51 Vi 


70.9 


28TH DISTRICT 








f 


Buncombe 


237 


193 


44 


81.4 


29TH DISTRICT 










Henderson 


30 


18 


12 


60.0 


McDowell 


25 


14 


6 


76.0 


Polk 











00.0 


Rutherford 


(0 


19 


11 


63.3 


Transylvania 


15 


8 


7 


53.3 


TOTAL 


100 


64 


Sb 


64.0 


30TH DISTRICT 










Cherokee 


9 


7Vi 


1 Vi 


83.3 


Clay 


J 


1 Vi 


2Vi 


37.5 


Graham 


9 


7 


2 


77.7 


Haywood 


20 


n 


1 


65.0 


Jackson 


45 


29 


16 


64.4 


Macon 


21 


9Vi 


HVi 


45.2 


Swain 


9 


5Vi 


3Vi 


61.1 


TOTAL 


117 


73 


44 


62J 



STATE TOTALS 



4071 Vi 2982 Vi 



1089 



73.2 



23 



SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL DOCKETS 

In the graphs which follow, criminal case activity in the superior courts during 1976 is compared 
with criminal case activity during the preceding four years. There was a small decrease in criminal 
case filings in 1976 — 52,547 as compared with 53,505 in 1975. (This is not viewed as indicative of any 
long range trend toward decreasing numbers of criminal cases filed in the superior courts. On the con- 
trary, the long range trend is expected to show, as over the past several years, modest annual increases 
in the numbers of criminal cases filed.) There was also a decrease in the number of criminal case dis- 
positions — 49,398 in 1976 as compared with 52,551 in 1975. The number of criminal cases pending at 
the end of 1976 was 18,431 as campared with 15,282 pending at the end of 1975, an increase of 
20.61%. 

Tables are presented which show the distribution of pending criminal cases among the counties, 
the ten counties with the largest number of criminal cases pending at the end of 1976, and the ten 
counties with the highest and the ten counties with the lowest ratios of criminal case dispositions to 
total caseloads. 

Data is then shown, by judicial districts and by counties, on: (1) criminal cases pending, filed 
and disposed of in 1976; (2) ages of felony cases pending in the superior courts as of December 31, 
1976; (3) ages of misdemeanor cases pending in the superior courts as of December 31, 1976; and (4) 
utilization of criminal superior court terms. 

It is of interest to note that 23,537 misdemeanor cases tried in the district courts were appealed to 
the superior courts for trial de novo. This was 6.5% of the total number of criminal cases (361,878) 
tried in the district courts, excluding those cases disposed of by waiver, preliminary hearing, dismissal 
or otherwise. A total of 52,547 criminal cases were filed in superior courts. Thus, the 23,537 cases ap- 
pealed from district courts constituted 44.79% of the total number of criminal cases filed in superior 
courts during 1976. 

Unlike the situation pertaining to civil cases, there is express legislative policy on speedy trials of 
criminal cases (G.S. 15A-701 et. seq.). The present statutes, enacted in 1973, authorize a judge in his 
discretion to enter an order directing that a defendant be tried within not less than 30 days if (1) the 
defendant has been confined for a period greater than 60 days; or (2) the defendant has been confined 
for at least 30 days and files a petition requesting a prompt trial; or (3) the defendant has been 
awaiting trial, without confinement, for a period greater than 90 days; or (4) the defendant has been 
awaiting trial, without confinement, for more than 60 days and files a petition requesting a prompt 
trial. Under the statutes, the judge is authorized to provide that if the defendant is not brought to trial 
within the time specified in his order, the defendant must be released on his own recognizance or the 
charges dismissed. 

In summary, the present statutes endorse but do not mandate these time standards: a defendant 
who is confined is entitled to a trial within 60 to 90 days; and a defendant awaiting trial who is not 
confined is entitled to a trial within 90 to 120 days. No distinction is made between the trial of a mis- 
demeanor and the trial of a felony, or between cases in the superior courts and those in the district 
courts. 

The statutes on speedy trial of criminal cases were rewritten by the 1977 Session of the General 
Assembly, with the revision to become effective October 1 . 1978. (See Chapter 787, 1977 Session 
Laws.) A two-stage progression of time standards is spelled out in Chapter 787. The first stage is for 
the period, October 1, 1978 to October 1, 1980; and the second stage is for the period on and after Oc- 
tober 1, 1980. 

Beginning October 1, 1978, a criminal case shall be tried within 120 days: after the defendant is 
arrested, served with criminal process, waives indictment or receives notice of an indictment; after 
giving notice of appeal in a misdemeanor case for trial de novo in the superior court; after a mistrial 
has been declared; or after a decision on an appeal ordering a retrial. Certain periods of delay are ex- 
cluded, such as time required for physical or mental examination of a defendant; other trials involving 
the defendant; interlocutory appeals; hearings on motions; delay caused by the defendant; delay 
agreed to by defendant and the prosecutor; or delay by reason of a continuance granted by a trial 
judge for good cause. If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limits specified by statute 
or otherwise prescribed by a trial judge, the charge shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant. 

25 



The same general provisions apply on and after October 1, 1980 except that the time periods are 
reduced from 1 20 to 90 days and 60 days. The 60-day standard will apply only to a new trial following 
declaration of a mistrial or a new trial following a decision on appeal which orders a new trial for the 

defendant. 

The tables on ages of criminal cases pending in the superior courts show that as of December 31, 
1976, approximately 30% of the misdemeanor cases and approximately 36% of the felony cases had 
been pending for more than six months, with about 12% of the misdemeanors and 18% of the felonies 
pending for more than a year. One might speculate that by the time the mandatory standards under 
Chapter 787. 1977 Session Laws, become effective on October 1, 1978, there will be some significant 
reduction in the number of criminal cases pending for more than six months. 



26 



CRIMINAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976) 



NO. OF CASES 



60,000 



55,000 



50,000 



45,000 



40,000 



35,000 



30,000 



25,000 



:o,0(K) 



15,000 



10,000 



5.000 



53,505 



52,551 



49,398 




ADDED: 



DISPOSED OF: 



J" 7 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976) 



NO. OF CASES 



25.000 



20.000 



5.000 



10.000 



5.000 




2X 



DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES 
AMONG THE COUNTIES 

(Superior Courts) 



Number of 


Less than 


Cases 


50 


Number of 




Counties & 




Year: 1972 


28 


1973 


27 


1974 


25 


1975 


23 


1976 


23 



50-100 

2^ 
27 
27 
23 

is 



101-200 



201-500 



Over 
500 



27 


15 


7 


26 


16 


4 


23 


IS 


7 


31 


15 


s 


31 


20 


s 



TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CRIMINAL DOCKETS 
PENDING AT YEAR END 



County 

* Mecklenburg 
*Guilford 
*Wake 

^Cumberland 
*Catawba 

Randolph 
Rockingham 

*Cabarrus 

*Alamance 

* Robeson 
STATE MEAN 



Pending 

1/1/76 


Filed 


Disposed of 


Pending 

12/31/76 


Relation (% 
of Disposi- 
tions to 
Filings 


1,896 


3,345 


3,118 


2,123 


93.2 


876 


2,610 


2,411 


1,075 


92.4 


901 


2,326 


2,540 


687 


109.2 


220 


2,158 


1,718 


660 


79.6 


209 


1,107 


726 


590 


65.6 


275 


748 


467 


556 


62.4 


131 


1,404 


1,022 


513 


72.8 


275 


1,029 


798 


506 


77.6 


431 


786 


804 


413 


102.3 


290 


1,019 


902 


407 


88.5 


153 


525 


494 


184 


94.1 



''Counties that were listed in this table in the 1975 Annual Report. 



29 



PFRCFVI OF CRIMINAL CASES TRIED IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH WERE 
APPEALED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR TRIAL DE NOVO 

Total number of cases tried in the District Court 361,878 

(Includes onl\ eases actually tried: excludes cases disposed of 
b\ waiver, preliminary hearing, dismissal or otherwise.) 

Total number of cases appealed from the District Court for 

trial de novo in the Superior Court 23,537 

Percent of cases tried in the District Court which were 

appealed to the Superior Court for trial de novo 6.5% 

PERCENT OF SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL FILINGS WHICH ARE CASES 
APPEALED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR TRIAL DE NOVO 

Total number of cases filed in Superior Court within its 

original jurisdiction 29,010 

Total number of cases filed in Superior Court upon appeal 

from District Court for trial de novo 23,537 

Total number of cases filed in Superior Court 52,547 

Percent of Superior Court Filings consisting of cases 

appealed from District Court for trial de novo 44.79% 



10 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH HIGHEST RATIOS OF DISPOSITIONS 
TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



New Hanover 

Hoke 

Forsyth 

Durham 

Gaston 

Lee 

Chowan 

Buncombe 

Washington 

Greene 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 

2,596 

289 

2,546 

1,687 

1,283 

307 

362 

1,509 

181 

218 

678 





% of Dis- 


Total 


positions 


Dispositions 


to Caseload 


2,300 


88.6 


2,560 


88.6 


2,251 


88.4 


1,471 


87.2 


1,112 


86.7 


263 


85.7 


309 


85.4 


1,284 


85.1 


153 


84.5 


184 


84.4 


494 


72.8 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH LOWEST RATIOS OF DISPOSITIONS 
TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Mitchell 

Hyde 

Randolph 

Chatham 

Person 

Granville 

Catawba 

Stokes 

Martin 

Yadkin 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 

76 

45 

1,023 

246 

584 

1,361 

1,361 

345 

272 

237 

678 



Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


33 


43.4 


20 


44.4 


467 


45.7 


115 


46.7 


282 


48.3 


236 


50.3 


726 


53.3 


190 


55.1 


150 


55.1 


133 


56.1 


494 


72.8 



31 



CRIMINAL (ASKS PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

January 1, 1976 -- December 31, 1976 



( \M Mil 1 I). 1976 



( ASES DISPOSED OF, 1976 



1ST DISTRICT 


IVndmt 


Misde- 




lolul ( ases 


lutal 






1 1 "0 


meanors 


Felonies 


h iled 


( ast'load 


lui i 


I 


29 




) •) 


94 


123 


10 


Chowan 


89 


1 9 ! 


80 


273 


362 


20 


Currituck 


47 


92 


39 


1 11 


178 


12 


Dare 


26 


281 


42 


323 


349 


17 


Gales 


33 


50 


5 


55 


ss 


2 


lotank 


S3 


371 


8') 


460 


543 


36 


Perquimans 


29 


106 


5 1 


128 


157 


12 


TO I \l 


336 


1165 


299 


1464 


18(10 


109 


2XD DISTRICT 














Beaufort 


100 


152 


223 


S75 


475 


66 


Hyde 


9 


3 1 


9 


36 


45 


Id 


Martin 


46 


79 


147 


226 


272 


33 


Tvrrell 


17 


28 





28 


45 


3 


Washington 


61 


70 


50 


120 


181 


28 











Increase 






lolal 




Decrease 






Dispo- 


Pending 


in Pending 


Plea 


Other 


sitions 


12/31/76 


( ases 


63 


1 5 


86 


37 


+ 8 


169 


120 


109 


53 


36 


107 


20 


I 19 


39 


- 8 


i 16 


1 i I 


274 


75 


+ 49 


56 


15 


73 


15 


- 18 


170 


206 


412 


i n 


+ 48 


65 


48 


125 


32 


+ 3 


776 


533 


1418 


382 


+ 46 



MM \l 



233 



356 



429 



785 



1018 



1411 



196 

2 

80 

16 

89 

383 



93 


355 


120 


8 


20 


25 


37 


150 


122 


10 


29 


16 


(6 


153 


38 



184 



7117 



Ml 



1 


20 


+ 


16 


+ 


76 


— 


1 

33 


+ 


78 



.^RD DISTRICT 



Carteret 


47 


51 1 


297 


608 


705 


34 


INN 


327 


549 


156 


+ 59 


Craven 


1 56 


351 


370 


721 


857 


.73 


243 


560 


676 


181 


+ 45 


Pamlico 


43 


43 


83 


126 


169 


8 


65 


35 


108 


61 


4- 18 


Pitt 


166 


391 


662 


1053 


1219 


108 


518 


356 


982 


237 


+ 71 


[<>l \l 


442 


1096 


1412 


2508 


2950 


223 


1014 


1078 


2315 


635 


+ 193 



4 77/ DISTRICT 



Duplin 


IN 


98 


246 


344 


362 


17 


I7N 


10) 


299 


63 


+ 45 


Junes 


1 


12 


13 


25 


26 


6 


8 


I 1 


26 


ii 


1 


1 i 


31 


242 


748 


990 


1021 


97 


360 


404 


861 


160 


+ 129 


Sampson 


45 


151 


240 


391 


436 


39 


198 


116 


353 


83 


+ 38 


TOTAL 


95 


503 


1247 


1750 


1845 


159 


744 


636 


1539 


306 


+ 211 



5TH DISTRIC1 



New H 


548 


597 


1451 


2048 


2596 


187 


968 


II4S 


2300 


296 


- 252 


Pender 


57 


90 


115 


205 


262 


6 


120 


56 


182 


80 


+ 23 


mi \i 


605 


687 


1566 


2253 


2858 


193 


1088 


1201 


2482 


376 


- 229 



','IH DIS'IRK I 



Bertie 


144 


35 


32 


67 


211 


58 


65 


50 


173 


38 


- 106 


Halil ■ 


137 


196 


200 


396 


523 


1 ! 


158 


249 


420 


103 


24 


Hertford 


41 


63 


81 


II 1 


187 


30 


44 


49 


123 


64 


+ 21 


Northampton 


19 


44 


39 


83 


102 


7 


35 


37 


79 


23 


+ 4 


TO! \l 


333 


338 


352 


690 


1023 


1118 


302 


385 


795 


228 


- 105 



"/// DISIUK 7 



:ombe 


! " 


I ' 


528 


704 


822 


33 


471 


182 


686 


I 16 


+ 18 




1 •: ! 


405 


366 


771 


953 


26 


538 


195 


759 


194 


+ 12 


v. 


• 


427 


374 


801 


888 


29 


333 


275 


637 


251 


+ 164 


mi m 


387 


1208 


1068 


2276 


2663 


H8 


1342 


652 


2082 


S8I 


+ 194 



<2 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



CASES FILED, 1976 



CASES DISPOSED OF, l«»76 



HTH DISTRICT 


Pending 

1/1/76 


Misde- 
meanors 


Felon 


Greene 


13 


125 


80 


Lenoir 


132 


452 


319 


Wayne 


162 


255 


371 


TOTAL 


307 


832 


770 


91 II PIS IRK 1 








Franklin 


302 


390 


65 


Granville 


191 


177 


IUI 


Person 


120 


277 


187 


Vance 


395 


186 


262 


Warren 


78 


104 


127 


TOTAL 


1086 


1134 


742 


I0TH DISTRICT 









Total ( ases 


Total 




Filed 


( aseload 


Jill 


205 


218 


7 


771 


903 


62 


626 


788 


77 


1602 


1909 


146 



Wake 



901 



1087 



1239 



455 
278 
464 
448 
231 
1876 



2326 



757 
469 
SK4 
843 
309 
2962 



3227 



15 
12 
29 
19 
9 
84 



227 



Plea 


Other 


Total 
Dispo- 
sitions 


Pending 
12/11/76 


Increase/ 
Decrease 
in Pending 

Cases 


89 


XX 


184 


34 


+ 21 


317 


377 


756 


147 


+ 15 


22S 


330 


632 


156 


- 6 


631 


795 


1572 


337 


+ 30 



305 


161 


481 


276 


106 


118 


236 


233 


124 


129 


282 


302 


191 


379 


589 


254 


106 


92 


207 


102 


832 


879 


1795 


1167 



1175 



1138 



2540 



687 



- 26 
+ 42 
+ 182 

- 141 
+ 24 
+ 81 



- 214 



I ITH DISTRICT 



Harnett 


105 


48 


205 


253 


}58 


26 


139 


lis 


280 


78 


- 27 


Johnston 


72 


134 


344 


478 


550 


39 


193 


206 


438 


1 12 


+ 40 


Lee 


18 


96 


193 


289 


307 


20 


1(14 


139 


263 


44 


+ 26 


TOTAL 


195 


278 


742 


1020 


1215 


85 


436 


460 


981 


234 


+ 39 


I2TH DISTRICT 
























Cumberland 


220 


608 


1550 


2158 


2378 


112 


522 


1084 


1718 


660 


+ 440 


Hoke 


137 


96 


56 


152 


289 


14 


122 


120 


256 


S3 


- 104 


TOTAL 


357 


704 


1606 


2310 


2667 


126 


644 


1204 


1974 


693 


+ 336 


I3TH DISTRICT 
























Bladen 


131 


110 


47 


157 


2xx 


6 


103 


85 


194 


94 


- 37 


Brunswick 


119 


119 


121 


242 


361 


34 


95 


141 


270 


91 


- 28 


Columbus 


243 


196 


324 


520 


763 


59 


190 


234 


483 


280 


+ 37 


TOTAL 


493 


425 


494 


919 


1412 


99 


388 


460 


947 


465 


- 28 


NTH DISTRICT 

























Durham 



219 



2W 



1170 



1468 



1687 



175 



763 



533 



1471 



216 



I5TH DISTRICT 



Alamance 


431 


294 


492 


786 


1217 


67 


241 


496 


804 


413 


- 18 


Chatham 


112 


66 


68 


134 


246 


10 


29 


76 


115 


1 SI 


+ 19 


Orange 


200 


116 


521 


637 


837 


9 


184 


191 


584 


253 


+ 53 


TOTAL 


743 


476 


1081 


1557 


2300 


86 


454 


963 


1503 


797 


+ 54 


I6TH DISTRICT 
























Robeson 


290 


307 


712 


1019 


1309 


81 


586 


235 


902 


407 


+ 117 


Scotland 


306 


59 


168 


227 


533 


23 


257 


88 


368 


165 


- 141 


TOTAL 


596 


366 


880 


1246 


1842 


104 


843 


323 


1270 


572 


24 



33 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OE IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



( ASKS HLKI). 1976 



CASES DISPOSED OF, 1976 



l~TH DISTRICT 


Pending 
1 I 76 


Misde- 
meanor*. 


Monies 


Total Cases 
Filed 


Toial 
( aseload 


1 u r \ 


He a 


Other 


Total 
Dispo- 
sitions 


Pending 
12/31/76 


Increase/ 

Decrease 

in Pending 

Cases 


Casuell 


12 


86 


55 


141 


153 


■4 


91 


II 


106 


47 


+ 35 


Rockingham 


131 


880 


524 


1404 


1535 


52 


691 


299 


1022 


513 


+ 382 


Stokes 


14" 


101 


95 


196 


345 


35 


148 


7 


190 


155 


+ 6 


Surrv 


88 


515 


274 


789 


877 


9 


471 


[54 


634 


34 5 


+ 155 


TOTAL 


380 


1582 


948 


2530 


2910 


80 


1401 


471 


1952 


958 


+ 578 


18TH DISTRICT 
























Guilford 
























Greensboro 


617 


669 


1214 


1883 


2500 


1 59 


896 


770 


1805 


695 


+ 78 


High Point 


259 


298 


429 


727 


986 


52 


326 


228 


606 


380 


+ 121 


TOTAL 


876 


967 


1643 


2610 


3486 


[91 


1222 


998 


2411 


1075 


+ 199 


19TH DISTRICT 
























Cabarrus 


275 


566 


463 


1029 


1304 


40 


411 


347 


798 


506 


+ 231 


Montgomery 


93 


172 


168 


340 


433 


15 


197 


95 


307 


126 


+ 33 


Randolph 


275 


462 


286 


748 


1023 


49 


236 


in: 


467 


556 


+ 281 


Rowan 


164 


465 


458 


923 


1087 


52 


408 


246 


706 


381 


+ 217 


TOTAL 


807 


1665 


1375 


3040 


3847 


156 


1252 


870 


2278 


1569 


+ 762 


20TH DISTRICT 
























Anson 


33 


1 12 


1X4 


296 


329 


1 1 


99 


129 


239 


90 


+ 57 


Moore 


165 


iwi) 


342 


532 


697 


(0 


265 


268 


563 


1 M 


- 31 


Richmond 


79 


268 


263 


531 


610 


22 


269 


175 


466 


144 


+ 65 


Stanly 


148 


156 


199 


355 


503 


29 


205 


106 


340 


163 


+ 15 


Union 


158 


228 


241 


469 


627 


28 


254 


242 


524 


103 


- 55 


TOTAL 


583 


954 


1229 


2183 


2766 


120 


1092 


920 


2132 


634 


+ 51 


2 1ST DISTRICT 

























Forsyth 



475 



1043 



MI28 



2071 



2546 



177 



1427 



647 



2251 



295 



I K0 



22 SD DISTRICT 



Alexander 


30 


306 


52 


358 


388 


6 


128 


184 


518 


70 


+ 40 


Dav idson 


78 


474 


199 


673 


751 


17 


359 


176 


552 


|W 


+ 121 




54 


170 


rjQ 18 


1 88 


242 


12 


96 


64 


172 


70 


+ 16 


Iredell 


49 


477 


235 


712 


761 


11 


263 


272 


576 


185 


+ 136 


TOTAL 


211 


1427 


SIM 


1931 


2142 


76 


846 


696 


1618 


524 


+ 313 


23RD DISTRICT 
























Alleghany 


33 


19 


22 


11 


74 


3 


26 


18 


47 


27 


6 


•Vshe 


37 


6 


70 


146 


183 


10 


104 


32 


146 


37 




Wilkes 


n 


161 


[83 


ill 


488 


24 


121 


159 


304 


1X4 


+ 40 


Yadkin 


30 


88 


129 


317 


237 


8 


78 


47 


133 


104 


+ 84 


IOI \l 


234 


344 


404 


748 


982 


45 


329 


256 


630 


352 


+ 118 


24TH DISTRICT 
























\ ■ •: r '. 


55 


1 '■ 


83 


126 


181 


21 


3 7 


75 


123 


58 


+ 3 


' 1 


33 


48 


50 


98 


120 


18 


20 


36 


74 


46 


+ 24 


Mitchell 


47 


23 


6 


29 


76 


Id 


6 


17 


33 


43 


+ 4 


1 


68 


28 


184 


212 


280 


10 


10! 


I 16 


227 


53 


- 15 


\ ancey 


1 1 


7 


20 


27 


38 


6 


17 


8 


31 


7 


- 4 


IOI M 


203 


149 


343 


492 


695 


65 


171 


252 


488 


207 


+ 4 



\4 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OE IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



C 'ASKS FILED, 1976 



CASES DISPOSED OF, 1976 



25TH DISTRICT 

Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 
TOTAL 



Pending 
1/1/76 

67 
160 
209 
436 



Misde- 
meanors 

223 

286 
372 
881 



Felonies 

235 

215 

735 

1185 



Total C ases 
Filed 

458 

501 
1107 
2066 



To(al 
( aseload 

s:s 

661 
1361 
2502 



Jur\ 

31 

63 

59 

153 



Plea 


Other 


Total 
Dispo- 
sitions 


Pending 
12/31/76 


Increase/ 

Decrease 

in Pending 

(ases 


144 


155 


330 


195 


+ 128 


242 


190 


495 


166 


+ 6 


457 


210 


726 


590 


+ 381 


843 


555 


1551 


951 


+ 515 



26TH DISTRICT 



Mecklenburg 



1896 



1463 



1882 



3345 



5241 



216 



1482 



1420 



3118 



2123 



+ 227 



27TH DISTRICT 



Cleveland 
Gaston 
Lincoln 
TOTAL 



142 
53 
38 

283 



195 

352 

64 

611 



394 

878 

191 

1463 



589 
1230 

255 
2074 



781 


42 


1283 


128 


293 


2X 


2357 


198 



315 


246 


603 


178 


535 


44') 


1112 


171 


124 


71 


223 


70 


974 


766 


1938 


419 



- 14 

+ 118 

+ 32 

+ 136 



2HTH DISTRICT 
Buncombe 



371 



560 



578 



1138 



1509 



56 



552 



676 



1284 



225 



146 



2VTH DISTRKJ 

Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

TOTAL 



XX 

90 

19 

259 
71 

527 



193 

175 

36 

195 

2x 
627 



190 

192 

7S 
279 
lis 
85! 



383 
367 
I I I 
474 
143 
1478 



471 


21 


457 


66 


130 





733 


65 


214 


17 


2005 


169 



130 


128 


279 


192 


113 


176 


555 


102 


46 


4(1 


86 


44 


154 


20 7 


426 


1(17 


69 


77 


163 


51 


512 


628 


1309 


696 



f 


104 


+ j 


- 12 


+ 


25 


+ 


4X 


- 


2(1 


t 


169 



50TH DISTRICT 

Cherokee 
Clay 
Graham 
Haywood 
Jackson 
Macon 
Swain 
TOTAL 



96 

x 

24 

144 

121 

15 

62 

672 



GRAM) TOTAL 15282 



48 

x 
17 

I I') 
47 
51 
21 

311 

23537 



28 
25 

41 
I 1 ? 
74 
46 
94 
480 

29010 



76 
33 

sx 
2>M 
121 

47 
lis 
7<i\ 

52547 



172 

41 

X2 

635 

244 

112 

177 

1463 

67829 



I 

2 

22 
10 
5 
5 
45 

3899 



IX 


86 


125 


47 


- 49 


24 


5 


11 


10 


+ 2 


J9 


18 


57 


25 


+ 1 


234 


226 


4X2 


153 


- 191 


63 


75 


NX 


96 


- 27 


IX 


46 


89 


21 


+ 8 


66 


44 


115 


62 




502 


500 


1047 


416 


- 256 


1420 


21079 


49398 


18431 


+ 3149 



35 



ACES OK FELONY CASES PENDING IN THE 
SUPERIOR COl'RTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



(SI DISTRH 1 



lotal Ivssihan 30-ftO 

IVndiny 30 l>a\s Days 



61-90 

Days 



«|-|H0 
l)a\s 



1X1 l)a>s I Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Greater 

fo 1 Year In 2 Years fo 3 Years To 4 Years To 5 Years Than 5 Years 



i den 

Percentage of Total 


5 




3 
60.0 






1 

20.0 


1 
20.0 






Chowan 

Percentage of Total 


IS 








14 

77.8 


4 

22.2 








Currituck 

Percentage ot'Total 


8 


: 

25.0 






2 
25.0 


3 

37.5 








D.i re 

Percentage ol Total 


13 




3 
23.1 


2 
15.4 


4 
30.8 


3 
23.1 


1 

7.7 






Gates 

Percentage of Total 


9 


4 
44.4 










5 
55.6 






Pasquotank 

Percentage of Total 


21 


3 
14.3 


1 
4.8 


7 
33.3 


6 
28.6 


2 
9.5 


2 
9.5 






Perquimans 

Percentage of Total 


9 




5 
55.6 




2 
22.2 






1 

1 1.1 




District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


St 


9 
10.8 


12 
14.5 


9 

10.8 


28 

33.7 


13 

15.7 


9 
10.8 


1 
1.2 




2ND DISTRICT 




















Beaufort 

Percentage of Total 


55 


18 

32.7 


11 
25.5 


6 
10.9 


1 
1.8 


9 
16.4 


7 
12.7 






H>de 

Percentage of Total 


X 


1 
12.5 


1 
12.5 


6 
75.0 












Martin 

Percentage of Total 


83 


10 
12.0 


16 
19.3 


4 
4.8 


12 
14.5 


31 

37.3 


8 
9.6 


1 
1.2 


1 
1.2 


Washington 

Percentage of Total 


21 


8 
38.1 


4 
19.0 


8 
38.1 




1 
4 S 








District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


167 


37 
22.2 


35 
21.0 


24 
14.4 


13 

7.8 


41 
24.6 


15 

9.0 


1 
0.6 


1 

0.6 


3RD DISTRICT 




















Carteret 

Percentage of Total 


105 


64 
61.0 


12 
11.4 


19 

18.1 


8 
7.6 




2 
I 9 






Craven 

Percentage of Total 


112 


30 
26.8 


49 
43.8 


8 

7 1 


16 
14.3 


9 
8.0 








Pamlico 

Percentage of Total 


16 


5 
31.3 






7 
43.8 


1 
6.3 


3 
18.8 






Pitt 

Percentage of Total 


165 


25 
15.2 


37 
22.4 


43 
26.1 


22 
13.3 


26 
15.8 


9 
5.5 




3 
1.8 


District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


398 


124 
31.2 


98 

24.6 


70 
17.6 


53 
13.3 


36 
9.0 


14 

V5 




3 

0.8 


4TH DISTRICT 





















Duplin 

Percentage ol 7 otal 
Onslow 

Percentage ol I otal 
Sampson 

Percentage of Total 
District lotals 

Percentage of I otal 



53 


4 

7.5 




49 
92.5 








138 


51 


i,\ 


8 


12 


1 






37.0 


44.2 


sx 


8.7 


1 




57 


10 


10 


2 


31 


i 


3 




17.5 


17.5 


3.5 


54.4 


1.8 


5.3 


248 


65 


71 


59 


43 


2 


? 




26.2 


28.6 


23.8 


17.3 


0.8 


1.2 



5 
3.6 



s 
2.0 



1 

1.1 

1 

I 2 



12.5 



I 
1.2 



36 



AGES OF FELONY CASES PENDING IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



5TH DISTRICT 

New Hanover 

Percentage of Total 
Pender 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



I'otal 

Pending 


Less than 
30 Days 


KM>0 
Days 


61-90 

Days 


tl-INI 
Days 


205 


64 
31.2 


20 
9.8 


46 
22.4 


44 
21.5 


57 


12 
21.1 


10 
17.5 


19 
33.3 


3 
5.3 


262 


76 
29.0 


30 
11.5 


65 

24.8 


47 
17.9 



1X1 Days I Near 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Greater 

fo t Year let 2 Years fo 3 Years To 4 Years fo 5 Years rhan 5 Years 



17 


9 


8.3 


4.4 


3 


7 


5.3 


12.3 


2(1 


14) 


7.6 


6.1 



3 

I 5 



I I 



2 
1.0 

3 
5.3 

5 
1.9 



OTH DISTRICT 

Bertie 

Percentage of Total 
Halifax 

Percentage of Total 
Hertford 

Percentage of Total 
Northampton 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



16 






2 
12.5 


1 
6.3 


3 
18.8 


6 

37.5 


62 


20 
32.3 


16 
25.8 


2 
3.2 


5 
8.1 




18 
29.0 


37 


1 
2.7 


7 
18.9 


2 
5.4 


6 
16.2 


13 
35.1 


3 
8.1 


6 






1 

16.7 


4 
66.7 






121 


21 
17.4 


23 
19.0 


7 
5.8 


16 
13.2 


16 

13.2 


27 
22.3 



1 

6.3 


3 
18.8 


1 
1 6 




5 

3.5 




7 
5.8 


3 

2.5 



I 

16.7 
0.8 



777/ DISTRICT 

Edgecombe 

Percentage of Total 
Nash 

Percentage of Total 
Wilson 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



85 


26 


3 


38 




30.6 


3.5 


44.7 


1 15 


30 


20 


8 




26.1 


17.4 


7.0 


162 


48 


13 


2 




29.6 


8.0 


1.2 


362 


104 


36 


48 




28.7 


9.9 


13.3 



5 


11 


2 


5.9 


12.9 


2.4 


1 * 


3 


6 


1 ! 


2.6 


5.2 


2 


48 


42 


1.2 


29.6 


25.9 


20 


62 


50 


5,5 


17.1 


13.8 



13 

I ) 



13 

3.6 



22 

19.1 

7 

4.3 

8.0 



8TH DISTRICT 

Greene 

Percentage of Total 
Lenoir 

Percentage of Total 
Wayne 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



15 



!89 



5 


1 


8 




1 






33.3 


6.7 


53.3 




6.7 






28 


40 


10 


4 




4 




32.6 


46.5 


11.6 


4.7 




4.7 




24 


18 


8 


3 


11 


23 


1 


27.3 


20.5 


9.1 


3.4 


12.5 


26.1 


1.1 


57 


59 


26 


7 


12 


27 


1 


30.2 


31.2 


13.8 


3.7 


6.3 


14.3 


0,5 



VTH DISTRICT 

Franklin 

Percentage of Total 
Granville 

Percentage of Total 
Person 

Percentage of Total 
Vance 

Percentage of Total 
Warren 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



3 


1 

33.3 


1 

33.3 






1 

33.3 






106 


16 


6 


7 


24 


13 


21 


7 




15.1 


5.7 


6.6 


22.6 


12.3 


19.8 


6.6 


117 


34 


24 


2 


7 


24 


17 


5 




29.1 


20.5 


1.7 


6.0 


20.5 


14.5 


4.3 


88 


6 


1 




25 


41 


12 


2 




6.8 


1.1 




28.4 


46.6 


13.6 


2.3 


63 


9 


2 


8 


8 


15 


19 


2 




14.3 


3.2 


12.7 


12.7 


23.8 


30.2 


3.2 


377 


66 


14 


17 


64 


94 


69 


16 




17.5 


<*.<! 


4.5 


17.0 


24.9 


18.3 


42 



4 
3.8 



1.1 



5 
1.3 



8 
7.5 

4 
1.4 



12 
3.2 



37 



AGES OF FELONY CASES PENDING IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



!OTH DISTRICT 

Wake 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



Total 

Pending 


Less lhan 
30 Days 


30-60 
Day-. 


61-W 
Days 


fl-lHO 
Days 


181 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To 3 Years 


3 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To 5 Years 


Greater 
Than 5 Years 


420 


63 
15.0 


85 
20.2 


44 

10.5 


124 

29.5 


65 
15.5 


'7 
8 8 


i 

2 


1 
0.2 






420 


63 

15.0 


85 
20.2 


44 
10.5 


124 

29.5 


65 
15.5 


37 
8.8 


0.2 


1 
0.2 







1 1 TH DISTRICT 



Harnett 


^ii 


2 


4 


14 


10 


1 1 


29 










Percentage of Total 




2.9 


5.7 


20.0 


14.3 


15.7 


41.4 










Johnston 


95 


7 


41 


43 


2 


2 












Percentage of Total 




7 4 


43.2 


45.3 


2.1 


2.1 












Lee 


24 


5 


5 


4 


10 














Percentage of Total 




20.8 


20.8 


16.7 


41.7 














District Totals 


ISM 


14 


50 


61 


22 


13 


29 










Percentage of Total 




7.4 


26.5 


32J 


11.6 


6.9 


15.3 










I2TH DISTRICT 
























Cumberland 


478 


85 


64 


39 


152 


105 


2X 


2 




3 




Percentage of Total 




17.8 


13.4 


8.2 


31.8 


22.0 


5.9 


4 




0.6 




Hoke 


12 






4 


3 




4 


1 








Percentage of Total 








33.3 


25.0 




33.3 


8.3 








District Totals 


490 


85 


64 


43 


155 


105 


32 


3 




3 




Percentage of Total 




17J 


13.1 


8.8 


31.6 


21.4 


6.5 


0.6 




0.6 




I iTH DISTRICT 
























Bladen 


51 








16 


8 


3 


4 








Percentage of Total 










51.6 


25.8 


9.7 


12.9 








Brunswick 


41) 


12 


2 


4 


10 


5 


1 








6 


Percentage of Total 




30.0 


5.0 


10.0 


25.0 


12.5 


2.5 








15.0 


Columbus 


149 


II 


35 


13 


44 


20 


15 


7 


1 


2 


1 


Percentage of Total 




7.4 


23.5 


8.7 


29.5 


13.4 


10.1 


4.7 


7 


1.3 


7 


District Totals 


220 


23 


37 


17 


70 


33 


19 


11 


1 


2 


7 


Percentage of Total 




10.5 


16.8 


7.7 


31.8 


15.0 


8.6 


5.0 


0.5 


0.9 


3.2 


I4TH DISTRICT 
























Durham 


1X7 




58 




64 


41 


23 


1 








Percentage of Total 






31.0 




34.2 


21.9 


12.3 


0.5 








District Totals 


1X7 




58 




64 


41 


23 


1 








Percentage of Total 






31.0 




34.2 


21.9 


12.3 


0.5 








15TH DISTRICT 
























Alamance 


282 


50 


47 


15 


58 


46 


47 


16 


2 




1 


Percentage of Total 




17.7 


16.7 


5.3 


20.6 


16.3 


16.7 


5.7 


7 




04 


Chatham 


81 


1 


3 




13 


20 


29 


15 








Percentage of Total 




1.2 


3.7 




16.0 


24.7 


35.8 


18.5 








Orange 


201 


21 


34 


44 


32 


24 


23 


22 


1 






Percentage of Total 




10.4 


16.9 


21.9 


15.9 


11.9 


11.4 


10.9 


0.5 






District Totals 


564 


72 


84 


59 


103 


90 


99 


53 


3 




1 


Percentage of I otal 




12.8 


14.9 


10.5 


18.3 


16.0 


17.6 


9.4 


0.5 




0.2 



?8 



AGES OF FELONY CASES PENDING IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



I6TH DISTRICT 


Total 
Pending 


Less than 
30 Days 


30-60 

Days 


61-90 
Days 


91-180 
Days 


181 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To 3 Years 


3 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To 5 Years 


Greater 
Than 5 Year 


Robeson 

Percentage of Total 


284 


51 
18.0 


32 
11.3 


24 
8.5 


69 
24.3 


82 
28.9 


17 
6.0 


6 

2.1 


3 

1 1 






Scotland 

Percentage of Total 


164 


14 
8 5 


6 

3.7 


9 

5.5 


59 
36.0 


29 

17.7 


37 
22.6 


7 
4.3 




3 

1 s 




District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


448 


65 
14.5 


38 
8.5 


33 

7.4 


128 

28.6 


111 

24.8 


54 
12.1 


13 
2.9 


3 
0.7 


3 
0.7 




I7TH DISTRICT 
























Caswell 

Percentage of Total 


22 


15 
68.2 


2 
9.1 




1 

4 5 


2 
9.1 


1 
4 5 




1 
4.5 






Rockingham 
Percentage of Total 


277 


70 
25.3 


17 
6.1 


102 
36.8 


27 
9.7 


55 
19.9 


6 

2.2 










Stokes 

Percentage of Total 


54 


11 
20.4 


10 
18.5 


13 
24.1 


14 
25.9 


4 

7 4 


1 

I 9 




1 

1.9 






Surry 

Percentage of Total 


11)0 


10 
10.0 


23 
23.0 


18 
18.0 


41 
41.0 


6 
6.0 


2 
2.0 










District Totals 
Percentage of Total 


453 


106 
23.4 


52 
11.5 


133 
29.4 


83 
18.3 


67 
14.8 


10 

2.2 




2 
0.4 






IHTH DISTRICT 
























Guilford 

Pe rce n tage o f To ta 1 


485 


70 
14.4 


47 
9.7 


96 
19.8 


85 
17.5 


103 

21.2 


82 
16.9 


1 

2 


1 

0.2 






High Point 
Percentage of Total 


217 


27 
12.4 


38 
17.5 


32 
14.7 


45 
20.7 


27 
12.4 


44 
20.3 


4 

1 s 








District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


7(12 


97 
13.8 


85 
12.1 


128 
18.2 


130 
18.5 


130 
18.5 


126 
17.9 


5 
0.7 


1 




* 


19TH DISTRICT 
























Cabarrus 

Percentage of Total 


195 


13 

6.7 


39 
20.0 


23 
11.8 


42 
21.5 


54 
27.7 


7 
3.6 


1.0 


8 
4.1 


4 
2.1 


3 

1 5 


Montgomery 

Percentage of Total 


35 




33 
94.3 








1 

2.9 




1 
2.9 






Randolph 
Percentage of Total 


234 


17 
7.3 


14 
6.0 


10 

4.3 


71 
30.3 


75 
32.1 


45 
19.2 


2 
0.9 








Rowan 

Percentage of Total 


173 


24 
13.9 


41 

23.7 


51 
29.5 


16 
9 2 


13 

7.5 


4 

2.3 


10 

5.8 


7 

4 


6 
3.5 


1 

0.6 


District Totals 
Percentage of Total 


637 


54 
8.5 


127 
19.9 


84 
13.2 


129 
20.3 


142 

22.3 


57 
8.9 


14 
2.2 


16 

2.5 


Hi 
1.6 


4 
0.6 


20TH DISTRICT 
























Anson 

Percentage of Total 


64 


4 
6.3 


12 
18.8 


4 
6.3 


26 
40.6 


8 
12.5 


3 

4.7 


4 
6.3 


3 

4 7 






Moore 
Percentage of Total 


99 


33 
33.3 


10 
10.1 


6 
6.1 


25 
25.3 


15 
15.2 


5 
5.1 


2 
2.0 


3 
3.0 






Richmond 

Percentage of Total 


80 


2 


23 
28.8 


5 
6.3 


33 
41.3 


12 
15.0 




5 
6.3 








Stanly 

Percentage of Total 


99 


5 
5.1 


5 
5.1 


1 

I 


38 
38.4 


14 
14.1 


24 
24.2 


10 
10.1 






2 
2.0 


Union 

Percentage of Total 


41 


12 
29.3 


8 
19.5 


3 
7.3 


5 
12.2 


10 
24.4 


3 

7 3 










District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


383 


56 
14.6 


58 
15.1 


19 

5.0 


127 
33.2 


59 
15.4 


15 
9.1 


21 
5 5 


6 

1.6 




2 
0.5 



39 



AGES OF FELONY CASES PENDING IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



2 1ST DISTRICT 


1 otal 
Pending 


1 ess than 
111 l)a\s 


KIWI 
l)a\s 


61-90 

l)a>s 


91-180 

Days 


ISI l)a>s 
I o 1 Year 


1 Year 
In 2 Years 


2 \ cars 
1 o 3 Years 


f-orv\ th 


165 


46 


35 


55 


19 


6 


2 


2 


Percentage of Total 




27.9 


21.2 


TV 3 


11.5 


3.6 


1.2 


1.2 


District Totals 


165 


46 


35 


55 


19 


6 


2 


2 


Percentage of Total 




27.9 


21.2 


33.3 


11.5 


J.6 


1.2 


1.2 



3 Years 4 Years Greater 

To4 Years lo S Years Than 5 Years 



::\n DISTRICT 



•Mexander 

Percentage of Total 


31 




8 
25.8 




8 
25.8 


13 

41.9 


2 
6.5 






Davidson 
Percentage of Total 


4" 






14 
28.6 


5 
10.2 


16 

32.7 


12 
24.5 


2 
4.1 




Da\ ie 

Percentage of Total 


28 


4 

14.3 


3 
10.7 


5 
17.9 


12 
42.9 


1 
3.6 


1 
3.6 


1 
3.6 




Iredell 

Percentage of Total 


ur 


38 
35.5 


15 
14.0 


II 
10.3 


22 
20.6 


6 
5.6 


1 1 
10.3 


3 
2.8 


1 
0.9 


District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


215 


42 
19.5 


26 
12.1 


30 
14.0 


47 
21.9 


36 
16.7 


26 
12.1 


6 

2.8 


1 
0.5 



1 

3.6 



1 
0.5 



:jrd district 

Alleghany 

Percentage of Total 
Ashe 

Percentage of Total 
Wilkes 

Percentage of Total 
Yadkin 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



4 






7 


3 
42.9 


3 
42.9 


93 


10 
10.8 


14 
15.1 


79 


44 

55.7 


17 
21.5 


183 


57 
31.1 


34 
18.6 







100.0 




1 
14.3 




6 


21 


24 


14 


3 


1 


6.5 


22.6 


25.8 


15.1 


3.2 


1 1 


6 


10 


2 








7.6 


12.7 


2.5 








12 


31 


30 


14 


4 


1 


6.6 


16.9 


16.4 


7.7 


2.2 


0.5 



24 TH DISTRICT 

Avery 

Percentage of Total 
Madison 

Percentage of Total 
Mitchell 

Percentage of Total 
Watauga 

Percentage of Total 
Yancey 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of (otal 



(X 


1 




2.6 


2* 


2 




8 7 


35 




39 


13 




33.3 


7 




142 


16 




11 J 





32 
84.2 




4 
10.5 


1 
2.6 








1 
4 ! 


1 

4 ! 


3 
13.0 


10 

43.5 


4 

17.4 






1 
2.9 


19 
54.3 


10 

28.6 


1 
2.9 


3 
8.6 




9 
13.1 


2 
5.1 


5 
12.8 


7 
17.9 


3 

7.7 






1 

4.3 


1 
14.3 






4 
57.1 




1 
14.3 


III 
7.0 


37 
26.1 


25 
17.6 


24 
16.9 


19 
13.4 


7 
4.9 


1 
0.7 



I 

4.3 

I 

2.9 



2 
1.4 



1 

4 ? 



I 
0.7 



25111 DISTRICT 

Burke 

Percentage of Total 
Caldwell 

Percentage of Total 
C ataw b,i 

Percentage ol Total 
District I otals 

Percentage of I otal 



94 


22 


6 


47 


10 


2 


1 


5 






23.4 


(i I 


50.0 


10.6 


2.1 


1.1 


5.3 




'0 


14 


16 


1 


13 


8 


13 


4 






20.0 


22.9 


1.4 


18.6 


II 4 


18.6 


5.7 




349 


33 


84 


29 


59 


96 


45 


2 


1 




9.5 


24.1 


8.3 


16.9 


27.5 


12.9 


0.6 


0.3 


513 


69 


106 


77 


82 


106 


59 


11 


1 




13.5 


20.7 


15.0 


16.0 


20.7 


11.5 


2.1 


0.2 



I 

1.1 

1 

1.4 



2 
11.4 



40 



AGES OF FELONY CASES PENDING IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



26TH DISTRICT 



Buncombe 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



Total less than 

Pending 30 Days 



111-611 
Davs 



61-90 

Days 



"M-1XII 
Davs 



1KI Days 
To 1 Year 



I Year 
To 2 Y ears 



2 Years 
1 o 3 Years 



3 Years 
lo 4 Years 



4 Y'ears Greater 

To S Years than 5 Y'ears 



Mecklenburg 


1 523 


152 


128 


53 


305 


424 


346 


57 


41 


8 


9 


Percentage of Total 




10.0 


8.4 


3.5 


20.0 


27.8 


22.7 


3.7 


2.7 


0.5 


0.6 


District Totals 


1523 


152 


128 


5< 


305 


424 


346 


57 


41 


X 


4 


Percentage of Total 




1(1.0 


N.4 


3.5 


20.0 


27.8 


22.7 


V7 


2.7 


0.5 


0.6 


27TH DISTRICT 
























Cleveland 


1 16 


1 1 


72 


13 


20 














Percentage of Total 




9.5 


62.1 


11.2 


17.2 














Gaston 


106 


22 


28 


7 


25 


9 


12 


2 




1 




Percentage of Total 




20.8 


26.4 


6.6 


23.6 


8.5 


11.3 


1.9 




0.9 




Lincoln 


54 


19 


8 


6 


8 


1 


6 


2 


3 




1 


Percentage of Total 




35.2 


14.8 


111 


14.8 


1 9 


111 


3.7 


5.6 




1.9 


District Totals 


276 


52 


108 


26 


53 


10 


18 


4 


3 


1 


1 


Percentage of Total 




18.8 


39.1 


9.4 


19.2 


3.6 


h.S 


1.4 


1.1 


11.4 


0.4 


28 TH DISTRICT 

























76 
76 



19 
25.0 


1 
1.3 


21 
27.6 


25 
32.9 


7 
9.2 


3 
3.9 


19 

25.0 


1 

1.3 


21 

27.6 


25 
32.9 


7 
9.2 


3.9 



29TH DISTRICT 



Henderson 

Percentage of Total 


ION 


6 
5.6 


3 

2 8 


19 

17.6 




19 

17.6 


17 
15.7 


15 
13.9 


7 
6.5 


1 
0.9 


21 
19.4 


McDowell 

Percentage of Total 


65 


10 
15.4 


4 
6.2 


2 
3.1 


5 
7.7 


8 

12.3 


6 
9.2 


4 
6.2 


7 
10.8 


15 
23.1 


4 
6.2 


Polk 
Percentage of Total 


31 


1 

3.2 


2 
6.5 


5 
16.1 


5 
16.1 


8 
25.8 


7 
22.6 


3 
9.7 








Rutherford 
Percentage of Total 


165 


22 
13.3 


10 

h l 


18 
10.9 


26 
15.8 


23 
13.9 


35 
21.2 


17 
10.3 


II 

6.7 


1 
0.6 


2 
1.2 


Transylvania 

Percentage of Total 


41 


9 
22.0 




9 
22.0 


4 
9.8 


10 
24.4 


6 
14.6 


3 
7.3 








District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


410 


48 
11.7 


19 
4.6 


53 
12.9 


411 

M.8 


68 
16.6 


71 
17.3 


42 
10.2 


25 
6.1 


17 
4 1 


27 
6,6 


30TH DISTRICT 
























Cherokee- 
Percentage of Total 


14 


1 

7.1 








4 
28.6 


9 
64.3 










Clay 

Percentage of Total 


5 


3 
60.0 








2 
40.0 












Graham 

Percentage of Total 


1 1 


1 
9.1 


5 
45.5 




5 
45.5 














Haywood 

Percentage of Total 


50 


13 
26.0 


8 
16.0 




4 
8.0 


15 
30.0 


10 
20.0 










Jackson 

Percentage of Total 


48 


29.2 


14 
33.3 


16 

2.1 


1 

10.4 


5 
18.8 


9 

2.1 


1 

4.2 


2 






Macon 

Percentage of Total 


I. 1 


16.7 




1 
8.3 


2 

16.7 


5 
41.7 


2 
16.7 










Swain 

Percentage of Total 


58 


1 
1.7 


2 
3.4 


5 
8.6 


14 
24.1 


9 

15.5 


16 

27.6 


2 
3.4 


2 
3.4 




7 

12.1 


District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


198 


21 
10.6 


29 
14.6 


22 
111 


26 
13.1 


40 

20.2 


46 

23.2 


3 
1.5 


4 

2.(1 




7 
3.5 


STATE TOTAL 
Percentage of Total 


10601 


1697 
16.(1 


1650 
15.6 


1312 
12.4 


2075 
19.6 


1921 
18.1 


1359 
12.8 


308 
2.9 


1^1 

1 4 


^4 
0.5 


•74 
0.7 



41 



AGES OF MISDEMEANOR CASES APPEALED FROM DISTRICT COURTS 
AND PENDING IN SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



/ ST DISTRICT 



I'olal 
Pending 



I esslhan 
«0Da»s 



Dais 



61-90 
Davs 



*> 1 - 1 S«> 18! Days ! Year 2 Years .1 Years 4 Years Greater 

Davs To I \ ear To 2 Years To 3 Years To4 Years To 5 Years Than 5 Years 



Camden 

Percentage of Total 


32 


11 
34.4 


6 
18.8 




7 
21.9 


3 
9.4 


5 
15.6 


Chowan 

Percentage of Total 


35 


17 
48.6 


12 
34.3 


6 
17.1 








Currituck 

Percentage of Total 


31 


3 
9.7 


7 
22.6 


4 
12.9 


5 
16.1 


8 
25.8 


4 
12.9 


Dare 

Percentage of Total 


62 


8 
12.9 


15 

24.2 


10 
16.1 


14 
22.6 


12 
19.4 


3 

4 8 


Gates 

Percentage of Total 


6 


1 

16.7 


5 
83.3 










Pasquotank 
Percentage of Total 


110 


14 
12.7 


25 
22.7 


21 
19.1 


29 
26.4 


18 
16.4 


3 

2 7 


Perquimans 

Percentage of Total 


23 


6 
26.1 


9 
39.1 




5 
21.7 


1 

4.3 


2 
8.7 


DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


299 


60 
20.1 


79 
26.4 


41 
13.7 


60 
20.1 


42 

14.0 


17 
5.7 


2ND DISTRICT 
















Beaufort 
Percentage of Total 


65 


13 
20.0 


20 
30.8 


9 

13.8 


7 
10.8 


14 
21.5 


2 
) 1 


Hyde 

Percentage of Total 


17 


1 
5.9 


5 
29.4 


4 
23.5 


1 
5.9 


5 
29.4 


1 
5.9 


Martin 

Percentage of Total 


V) 


4 
10.3 


7 
17.9 


3 

7.7 


15 

38.5 


7 
17.9 


3 

7.7 


Tyrrell 

Percentage of Total 


16 


5 
31.3 




4 
25.0 


2 
12.5 


4 
25.0 


1 
6.3 


Washington 

Percentage of Total 


7 






3 
42.9 


2 
28.6 


2 
28.6 




DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 


144 


23 
16.0 


32 

22.2 


23 
16.0 


27 
18.8 


32 

22.2 


7 
4.9 


3RD DISTRICT 
















Carteret 

Percentage of Total 


51 


8 
15.7 


9 
17.6 


21 
41.2 


12 
23.5 




1 
2.0 


Craven 

Percentage of Total 


69 


16 

23.2 


23 
33.3 


10 
14.5 


9 
13.0 


10 
14.5 




Pamlico 

Percentage of Total 


45 


1 
2 2 


2 

44 


8 
17.8 


28 
62.2 


1 

2.2 


1 
2 2 


Pitt 

Percentage of Total 


72 


13 
18.1 


33 
45.8 


7 
9 7 


8 
111 


9 
12.5 


1 

1 4 


DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


237 


38 
16.0 


67 
28.3 


46 
19.4 


57 
24.1 


20 

8.4 


3 
1.3 


4TH DISTRICT 

















Duplin 

Percentage of Total 
Onslow 

Percentage of Total 
Sampson 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of I otal 



10 






10 
100.0 




22 


14 
63.6 


5 
22.7 


1 

4.5 


2 
9.1 


26 


8 
30.8 


11 
42.3 


2 
7.7 


4 
15.4 


SK 


22 
37.9 


16 

27.6 


13 

22.4 


6 
10.3 



).8 

1 
1.7 



I 
1 4 

4 
8.9 

1 
I 4 

6 
2.5 



42 



AGES OF MISDEMEANOR CASES APPEALED FROM DISTRICT COURTS 
AND PENDING IN SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



5TH DISTRICT 

New Hanover 

Percentage of Total 
Pender 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



Total 
Pending 


Less than 
30 Days 


30-60 
Days 


61-90 
Days 


«1-I80 
Days 


1X1 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Vears 


2 Years 
To 3 Years 


3 Years 
To 4 Years 


91 


31 
34.1 


20 
22.0 


4 
44 


7 
7.7 


9 
9.9 


6 
6.6 


13 
14.3 


i 

i i 


23 


8 
34.8 


2 

N7 


4 
17.4 


8 
34.8 


1 

4 1 








114 


39 

34.2 


22 
193 


8 

7.(1 


15 

13.2 


10 
8.8 


6 

5.3 


13 
11.4 


i 

(1.9 



4 Years Greater 

To 5 Years Than 5 Years 



6TH DISTRICT 

Bertie 

Percentage of Total 
Halifax 

Percentage of Total 
Hertford 

Percentage of Total 
Northampton 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



22 


5 
13.6 


7 
31.8 


2 
9 1 


1 
4.5 


3 
13.6 


3 
13.6 


3 
13.6 


41 


10 

24.4 


5 
12.2 


7 
17.1 


12 
29.3 


2 
4.9 


5 
12.2 




27 


1 
) 7 


5 
18.5 


4 
14.8 


9 
33.3 


3 
III 


1 
5.7 


4 
14.8 


17 


1 


1 

Si) 


3 
17.6 


2 
11.8 


8 

47.1 






107 


15 
14.0 


18 
16.8 


16 
15.0 


24 

22.4 


16 
15.0 


9 

8.4 


7 
6.5 



I 

5.9 
I 

0.9 



1 

5.9 
0.9 



7TH DISTRICT 

Edgecombe 

Percentage of Total 
Nash 

Percentage of Total 
Wilson 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



51 

79 

89 

219 



28 
54.9 

12 
15.2 

32 
36.0 

72 
32.9 



15.7 
II 

13.9 
39 

43.8 
58 

26.5 



2 
?.9 

8 
10.1 



10 
4.6 



9 

17.6 

12 

15.2 

3 

5.4 

24 

11.0 



2 

3.9 

22 

27.8 

7 

7.9 

31 

14.2 



2 
^> 

10 

12.7 

6 

6 7 

18 

X.2 



2 

2 s 



3 
1.4 



2 
2.5 

1 
I I 

3 
1.4 



8TH DISTRICT 

Greene 

Percentage of Total 
Lenoir 

Percentage of Total 
Wayne 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



19 


7 
36.8 


1 
5.3 


2 
10.5 


4 
21.1 


4 
21.1 


1 
5.3 


61 


14 
23.0 


18 
29.5 


8 
13.1 


15 
24.6 


5 
8.2 


1 
1.6 


68 


18 
26.5 


12 
17.6 


17 
25.0 


7 
10.3 


9 

13.2 


5 

74 


48 


39 
26.4 


31 

20.9 


27 
18.2 


26 
17.6 


18 
12.2 


7 
4.7 



9TH DISTRICT 

Franklin 

Percentage of Total 
Granville 

Percentage of Total 
Person 

Percentage of Total 
Vance 

Percentage of Total 

Warren 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



273 


19 


44 


60 


4') 


33 


so 


16 




2 






7.0 


16.1 


22.0 


17.9 


12.1 


18.3 


5.9 




(1 7 




127 


5 


21 


4 


32 


44 


16 


5 










S.9 


16.5 


3.1 


25.2 


34.6 


12.6 


3.9 








185 


12 


25 


15 


28 


58 


31 


15 


1 








(, s 


13.5 


X 1 


15.1 


31.4 


16.8 


8 1 


5 






166 


14 


18 


IN 


30 


41 


34 


7 


3 




1 




8.4 


10.8 


10.8 


18.1 


24.7 


20.5 


4.2 


1.8 




0.6 


59 


2 


2 


2 


3 


20 


10 












5.1 


5.1 


5 1 


7.7 


51.3 


25.6 










790 


S2 


no 


99 


142 


196 


141 


43 


4 


2 


1 




h.6 


13.9 


12.5 


18.0 


24.8 


17.8 


54 


0.5 


0.3 


II.! 



43 



ACES OF MISDEMEANOR CASES APPEALED FROM DISTRICT COURTS 
AND PENDING IN SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



I0TH DISTRICT 


total 
Pending 


less than 
30 Days 


30-60 

[)a»s 


61-VO 
l)a»s 


41-1X0 

Days 


ISI I)a\s 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
In 2 Years 


2 Years 
I o 3 Years 


3 Y ears 
To 4 Y ear 


Wake 

Percentage of Total 


267 


42 

15.7 


45 
16.9 


45 
16.9 


98 
36.7 


34 
12.7 


1 

04 




2 
0.7 


DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


267 


42 
15.7 


45 
16.9 


45 

16.9 


98 
36.7 


34 
12.7 


1 
0.4 




2 
0.7 


11 TH DISTRICT 




















Harnett 

Percentage of Total 


8 


2 
25.0 


1 

12.5 


1 

12.5 




2 
25.0 


1 

12.5 


1 

12.5 




Johnston 

Percentage of Total 


17 
17.6 


3 

47.1 


8 
17.6 


3 
5.9 


1 
5.9 


1 
5.9 


1 






Lee 

Percentage of Total 


20 


5 
25.0 


6 
30.0 




8 
40.0 




1 
5.0 






DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


45 


10 

22.2 


15 

33.3 


4 
8.9 


9 
20.0 


3 
6.7 


3 

6.7 


I 

2.2 




12TH DISTRICT 




















Cumberland 

Percentage of Total 


is: 


18 
9.9 


41 
22.5 


13 
7.1 


47 
25.8 


60 
33.0 


3 
1.6 






Hoke 

Percentage of Total 


21 


9 
42.9 


4 
19.0 


3 
14.3 


1 
4.8 


4 
19.0 








DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


203 


27 
13.3 


45 

22.2 


16 
7.9 


48 
23.6 


64 
31.5 


3 
1.5 






13TH DISTRICT 




















Bladen 

Percentage of Total 


63 


2 
3.2 


9 
14.3 


7 
1 1.1 


11 

17.5 


17 
27.0 


13 
20.6 


4 
6.3 




Brunswick 

Percentage of Total 


51 


12 
23.5 


8 
15.7 




21 
41.2 


9 

17.6 


1 
2.0 






Columbus 

Percentage of Total 


131 


16 
12.2 


15 
11.5 


3 

2.3 


17 
13.0 


23 
17.6 


29 
22.1 


24 
18.3 


2 
1.5 


DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


245 


JO 

12.2 


32 
13.1 


10 

4.1 


49 

20.0 


49 
20.0 


43 
17.6 


28 
11.4 


2 
0.8 


NTH DISTRICT 




















Durham 

Percentage of Total 


29 




16 

55.2 


13 

44.8 












DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


29 




16 

55.2 


13 
44.8 












15TH DISTRICT 




















Alamance 

Percentage of Total 


131 


19 
14.5 


15 
11.5 


8 

6 1 


49 
37.4 


17 
13.0 


20 
15.3 




3 
2.3 


Chatham 

Percentage of Total 


50 


4 
8.0 


3 
6.0 


7 
14.0 


1 1 
22.0 


7 
14.0 


16 
32.0 


2 
4.0 




Orange 

Percentage of Total 


52 


3 

5.8 


4 

7.7 


4 

7.7 


9 
17.3 


22 
42.3 


10 
19.2 






IMS I RK TTOTALS 
Percentage of 1 otal 


233 


26 
11.2 


22 
<»4 


19 

8.2 


69 

29.6 


46 
19.7 


46 

19.7 


2 
0.9 


1.3 



4 Years Greater 

To 5 Years Than 5 Years 



2 
I 5 

2 
0.8 



44 



AGES OF MISDEMEANOR CASES APPEALED FROM DISTRICT COURTS 
AND PENDING IN SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



I6TH DISTRICT 


Total 
Pending 


Less than 
30 Days 


30-60 
Days 


6I-«XI 

Daw 


<I|-IS<I 
Days 


ini Days 
To 1 ^ ear 


1 Year 
to 2 \ ears 


2 Years 
To 3 Years 


3 Years 
I o 4 Years 


4 N ear-, 
To 5 Y ears 


Greater 
1 iiin 5 Years 


Robeson 

Percentage of Total 


123 


13 

10.6 


18 
14.6 


1 1 

8.9 


41 

33.3 


2 -> 
17.9 


15 

12.2 


3 
2.4 








Scotland 

Percentage of Total 


1 










1 

100.0 












DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


124 


13 
10.5 


18 
14.5 


11 

8.9 


41 
33.1 


23 
18.5 


15 
12.1 


3 

2.4 








I7TH DISTRICT 
























Caswell 

Percentage of Total 


25 




7 
28.0 




7 
28.0 


8 
32.0 


2 
8.0 


1 
4.0 








Rockingham 

Percentage of Total 


236 


73 
30.9 


20 
8.5 


59 
25.0 


36 
15.3 


44 
18.6 


3 
1.3 


1 
0.4 








Stokes 

Percentage of Total 


101 


8 
7.9 


26 

25.7 


14 
13.9 


25 
24.8 


17 
16.8 


8 
7.9 


2 
2.0 






i 

i (i 


Surry 

Percentage of Total 


143 


23 
16.1 


37 
25.9 


15 
10.5 


42 
29.4 


19 
13.3 


7 
4.9 










DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


505 


104 
20.6 


90 

17.8 


88 

17.4 


no 

21.8 


88 
17.4 


20 
4.0 


4 
0.8 






i 

0.2 


IHTH DISTRICT 
























Guilford 

Percentage of Total 


216 


27 
12.5 


24 
III 


84 
38.9 


1 1 
5.1 


28 
13.0 


42 
19.4 










High Point 

Percentage of Total 


157 


18 
11.5 


12 
7.6 


18 
11.5 


30 
19.1 


57 
36.3 


17 
10.8 


5 
3.2 








DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


373 


45 
12.1 


36 

9.7 


102 

27J 


41 
11.0 


85 
22.8 


59 
15.8 


5 
1.3 






• 


I9TH DISTRICT 




















. 




Cabarrus 

Percentage of Total 


311 


34 
10.9 


24 

7 7 


26 

8.4 


95 
30.5 


75 
24.1 


26 

8.4 


4 
1.3 


14 

4.5 


11 

3.5 


2 
0.6 


Montgomery 

Percentage of Total 


91 


7 
7.7 


35 
38.5 




9 
9.9 


12 
13.2 


12 

13.2 


3 
3.3 


13 

14.3 






Randolph 

Percentage of Total 


322 


8 

2.5 


36 
6.2 


20 
28.9 


93 
40.1 


129 
11.2 


36 










Rowan 
Percentage of Total 


208 


20 
9.6 


26 
12.5 


39 

18.8 


66 
31.7 


1') 
9.1 


22 
10.6 




11 
5.3 


3 

1 4 


2 

1 (i 


DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


932 


69 

7.4 


121 
13.0 


85 

9.1 


263 

28.2 


235 

25.2 


96 
10.3 


7 
0.8 


38 

4. 1 


14 
1.5 


4 

0.4 


20TH DISTRICT 
























Anson 

Percentage of Total 


26 


4 
15.4 


6 
23.1 


3 

11.5 


7 
26.9 


2 
7.7 








2 
7.7 


7 7 


Moore 

Percentage of Total 


35 


7 
20.0 


1 

2.9 


3 
8.6 


12 
34.3 


6 
17.1 


5 
14.3 


1 
2.9 








Richmond 

Percentage of Total 


64 


8 
12.5 


33 
51.6 


18 
28.1 




1 

1.6 


3 

4.7 






1 

1.6 




Stanly 

Percentage of Total 


64 


6 

9.4 


17 
26.6 


2 
3.1 


7 
10.9 


25 
39.1 


2 
3.1 


1 
1.6 


1 
1.6 


2 
3.1 


1 
1.6 


Union 

Percentage of Total 


62 


17 

27.4 


17 
27.4 


6 
9.7 


10 
16.1 


10 
16.1 


1 

1 (i 








1 
1.6 


DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


251 


42 
16.7 


74 
2°.5 


32 
12.7 


36 
14.3 


44 

17.5 


II 
44 


2 
0.8 


I 
0.4 


5 
2.0 


4 

1 6 



45 



AGES OF MISDEMEANOR CASES APPEALED FROM DISTRICT COURTS 
AND PENDING IN SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



:iST DISTRICT 

Forsyth 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of 1 otal 



tola I 
Pending 

130 



130 



I ess than 
30 Days 

39 
30.0 

39 
30.0 



JlO-tt) 
Days 

33 

25.4 

33 

25.4 



Da»s 

15 
11.5 

15 
11.5 



<)I-1K0 181 Days I Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Greater 

To I Near I o 2 \ ears ro3Years To4Years To5Years Than 5 Years 



Days 



37 
28.5 

37 
28.5 



6 
4 6 

6 
4f> 



::\p DISTRICT 

Alexander 

Percentage of Total 
Da\ idson 

Percentage of Total 
Davie 

Percentage of Total 
Iredell 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



39 


8 
20.5 


16 
41.0 


3 

7.7 


6 
15.4 


2 
5.1 


4 
10.3 


150 


76 
50.7 


17 
11.3 


22 
14.7 


6 
4.0 


17 
11.3 


7 

4 7 


4: 


17 
40.5 


9 
21.4 


4 
9.5 


5 
11.9 


7 
16.7 




78 


28 
35.9 


17 
21.8 


7 
9.0 


11 
14.1 


10 
12.8 


4 
5 1 


309 


129 
41.7 


59 
19.1 


36 
11.7 


28 
9.1 


36 
11.7 


15 

49 



4 
2.7 


1 
1.3 


1 

7 


4 
1.3 


1 
0.3 


1 
0.3 



23RD DISTRICT 

Alleghan) 

Percentage of Total 
Ashe 

Percentage of Total 
Wilkes 

Percentage of Total 
Yadkin 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



23 


4 

17.4 


1 
4 i 


3 
13.0 


3 
13.0 


7 
30.4 


3 
13.0 


2 

X 7 




30 


15 
50.0 


7 
23.3 


3 

10 






4 
13.3 


1 
3.3 




'»! 


8 

s 8 


1 
1.1 


16 

17.6 


20 
22.0 


34 
37.4 


8 
8.8 


2 
2 2 


2 


25 


9 
36.0 


2 
8.0 




7 
28.0 


4 
16.0 






3 
12.0 


169 


36 
21.3 


II 

6.5 


22 
13.0 


30 

17.8 


45 
26.6 


15 
8.9 


5 
3.0 


5 
3.0 



24 TH DISTRICT 

Avers 

Percentage of Total 
Madison 

Percentage of Total 
Mitchell 

Percentage of Total 
Watauga 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



10 


1 
5.0 


1 
5.0 


5 
25.0 


4 
20.0 


4 
20.0 


5 
25.0 


23 


4 

17.4 




7 
30.4 


2 
8 7 


5 
21.7 




8 


2 
25.0 


5 
62.5 


1 
12.5 








14 




2 
14.3 




4 
28.6 


5 
35.7 


3 

21.4 


OS 


7 
10.8 


8 
12.3 


13 
20.0 


10 
15.4 


14 
21.5 


8 
12.3 



I 

4 \ 



I 
l .5 



I 3 

4.3 13.0 



I 3 

1.5 4.6 



2577/ DISTRICT 

Burke 

Percentage of Total 
Caldwell 

Percentage of Total 

Percentage of Total 

nisi kl( I IOI \l s 

Percentage of I otal 



101 


6 


15 


29 


10 


17 


12 


4 


6 




2 




5.9 


14.9 


28.7 


9.9 


16.8 


11.9 


4.0 


5.9 




2.0 


96 


16 


18 


2 


14 


24 


13 


6 


1 


2 






16.7 


18.8 


2.1 


14.6 


25.0 


13.5 


6 S 


l 


2 I 




241 


40 


62 


28 


51 


32 


23 


5 










16 6 


25.7 


11.6 


21.2 


13.3 


9.5 


2.1 








438 


62 


95 


59 


75 


73 


4K 


IS 


7 


2 


2 




14.2 


21.7 


13.5 


17.1 


16.7 


11.0 


V4 


1.6 


0.5 


0.5 



46 



AGES OF MISDEMEANOR CASES APPEALED FROM DISTRICT COURTS 
AND PENDING IN SUPERIOR COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



26TH DISTRICT 



Buncombe 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



Tola I 
Pending 



Less than 
30 Days 



30-60 
Days 



61-°0 
Days 



•M-IHO 
Days 



1 HI Days 
To I Near 



I Year 
To 2 Years 



2 Years 
To 3 Years 



3 Years 
To 4 Years 



4 Years 
To 5 Years 



14') 
I4«* 



58 
38.9 

58 
38.9 



48 
32.2 

48 
32.2 



25 
16.8 

25 
16.8 



6 
4.0 

4<> 



- 4 

H 

5.4 



1 
7 

! 
0.7 



3 
2.0 

3 
2.0 



(Greater 
Than 5 Years 



Mecklenburg 

Percentage of Total 


600 


19 

3.2 


171 
28.5 


256 
42.7 


51 

s s 


61 
10.2 


33 

5.5 


4 

7 


2 

n \ 


2 
(i 5 


1 
2 


DISTRICT TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 


600 


|i 

3.2 


171 

28.5 


256 

42.7 


51 
8.5 


(.1 
10.2 


33 

5.5 


4 

0,7 


2 
(1 .< 


2 
03 


1 
0.2 


27TH DISTRICT 
























Cleveland 

Percentage of Total 


62 


S9 
62.9 


15 
24.2 


2 
I 2 


6 

9.7 














Gaston 

Percentage of Total 


65 


29 
44.6 


22 
33.8 


7 
10.8 


5 

7 7 


2 
S 1 












Lincoln 
Percentage of Total 


16 


2 
12.5 


6 

37.5 




1 
6 ! 


1 
6 1 


4 
25.0 




1 
6 3 


1 
6.3 




DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 


143 


70 
49.0 


43 
30.1 


>> 
6 J 


12 

K4 


3 

2 ! 


4 
2.8 




1 
(1.7 


1 

(1.7 




28TH DISTRICT 

























29TH DISTRICT 



Henderson 

Percentage 
McDowell 

Percentage 
Polk 

Percentage 
Rutherford 

Percentage 
Transylvania 

Percentage 
DISTRICT T 

Percentage 



ofTotal 

ofTotal 

ofTotal 

ofTotal 

ofTotal 
OTALS 
ofTotal 



X4 


32 
38.1 


11 

13.1 


14 
16.7 




9 
10.7 


6 

7.1 


3 
J.6 


1 
1.2 


3 
3.6 


5 
6.0 


37 


4 
10.8 


9 
24.3 


8 
21.6 


3 
8.1 


4 
10.8 


5 
13.5 


1 
2.7 


1 

7 ? 


1 

2.7 


1 

,\7 


13 


3 
23.1 


1 

7 7 


3 

23.1 


2 
15.4 


3 
23.1 


1 

77 










142 


11 

7 7 


19 

13.4 


7 
4') 


41 
28.9 


34 
23.9 


20 
14.1 


4 
2.8 


3 
2.1 




3 
2.1 


10 


4 
40 






5 
50.0 


1 
10.0 












286 


54 

18.9 


40 
14.0 


32 
11.2 


51 
17.8 


51 

17.8 


32 
11.2 


8 

2.8 


5 
17 


4 
1.4 


9 

3.1 



iOTH DISTRICT 

Cherokee 

Percentage ofTotal 
Clay 

Percentage ofTotal 
Graham 

Percentage ofTotal 
Haywood 

Percentage ofTotal 
Jackson 

Percentage ofTotal 
Macon 

Percentage ofTotal 
Swain 

Percentage ofTotal 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 

STATE TOTALS 
Percentage ofTotal 



33 


8 
24.2 


2 
6.1 


2 
6.1 


4 
12.1 


II 
33.3 


6 
18.2 










5 




2 
40.0 






1 
20.0 


2 
40.0 










14 






4 
28.6 


8 
57.1 


1 

7 1 


1 

7.1 










103 


11 
10.7 


17 
16.5 


10 

9.7 


19 
18.4 


35 
34.0 


9 

8.7 


2 
1.9 








48 




10 
20.8 


1 
2.1 


7 
14.6 


20 
41.7 


2 
4 7 


6 
12.5 


1 
2.1 


1 

7 1 




11 




3 

27.3 




7 
63.6 


1 

9 l 












4 


2 
50.0 


1 
25.0 


1 
25.0 
















218 


21 
9.6 


35 
16.1 


IK 
8.3 


45 

20.6 


69 
31.7 


2(1 

*».2 


H 

3.7 


(1.5 


1 

OS 




830 


1263 
16.1 


1490 
19.0 


1193 

15.2 


1490 
19.0 


1403 
17.9 


681 

X.7 


2.1 


K6 
1.1 


34 
0.4 


29 

0.4 



47 



UTILIZATION OF CRIMINAL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS 
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

1976 Calendar Year 



ISTDISTRICT 


Days 

Scheduled 


Days 
Held 


Day- 
I nused 


I sed 


Camden 


15 


10 


5 


66.6 


Chowan 


;,i 


27': 


2 1 : 


91.6 


Currituck 


30 


28 ': 


1 Vi 


95.0 


Dare 


35 


29 


6 


X2.X 


GateS 


25 


14 


6 


76.0 


Pasquotank 


60 


48 ! j 


ll'/2 


80.8 


Perquimans 


25 


20 


5 


80.0 


TOTAL 


220 


182 >/2 


37 Vi 


82.9 


2SD DISTRICT 










Beaufort 


75 


67 


8 


89.3 


H>de 


6 


2Vi 


3Vi 


41.6 


Martin 


40 


35 


5 


87.5 


Tyrrell 


III 


3 


7 


30.0 


Washineton 


23 


1 5 Vi 


7'/; 


67.3 


TOTAL 


[54 


123 


31 


79.8 


3RD DISTRICT 










Carteret 


38 


28 


10 


73.6 


Craven 


100 


79 Vi 


20 l /2 


79.5 


Pamlico 


20 


14 


6 


70.0 


Pitt 


123 


100 


23 


81.3 


TOTAL 


2X1 


221 Vi 


59 Vi 


78.8 


4TH DISTRICT 










Duplin 


M) 


27 


3 90.0 




Jones 


10 


4 


6 


40.0 


Onslow 


I4f 


|IN 


36 


75.1 


Sampson 


50 


38 


12 


76.0 


TOTAL 


235 


178 


^7 


75.7 


5TH DISTRICT 










Neu Hanover 


225 


179 


46 


79.5 


Pender 


25 


22 '/2 


2'/2 


90.0 


mm 


250 


201V2 


48 Vi 


80.6 


6TH DISTRICT 










Bertie 


^2 


23 '/2 


8Vi 


73.4 


Halifax 


45 


39 


6 


86.6 


Hertford 


20 


18 


2 


90.0 


Northampton 


i- 


14 


4 


77.7 


IOI \l 


115 


94% 


20 Vi 


82.1 


777/ DISTRICT 










} dgecombe 


55 


34 Vi 


20 Vi 


62.7 


S 


60 


40 


20 


66.6 


•'• . 


--' 


67 Vi 


l7'/2 


79.4 


IOI \l 


200 


142 


58 


71.0 


<rn DISTRK r 










Greene 


30 


IX 


12 


60 


1 


90 


75 


15 


83.3 


■■■ 


140 




12 


91 4 


IOI \] 


260 


221 


39 


85 



¥77/ DISTRICT 

Franklin 

Granville 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 
TOTAL 

10TH DISTRICT 
Wake 

1ITH DISTRICT 



Durham 



I5TH DISTRICT 



Days 


Days 


Days 


% 


Scheduled 


Meld 


I nuved 


I scd 


40 


3 1 Vi 


8V2 


78.7 


20 


16 


4 


80.0 


50 


47 Vi 


IVi 


95.0 


50 


43 Vi 


6'/2 


87.0 


25 


20 


5 


80.0 


185 


158 Vi 


26 Vi 


85.6 



415 



V47 



297 



267 Vi 



68 



29 Vi 



83.6 



Harnett 


70 


60'/2 


9'/2 


86.4 


Johnston 


( ,(i 


44 


16 


73.3 


Lee 


id 


25 Vi 


4'/2 


85.0 


TOTAL 


160 


130 


30 


81.2 


I2TH DISTRICT 










Cumberland 


315 


264 1/2 


50 Vi 


83.9 


Hoke 


30 


29 


1 


96.6 


TOT A L 


V4S 


293 Vi 


51 Vi 


85.0 


13TH DISTRICT 










Bladen 


29 


25 Vi 


3'/2 


87.9 


Brunswick 


4> 


37 


8 


82.2 


Columbus 


80 


69 '/2 


10 Vi 


86.8 


TOTAL 


154 


132 


22 


85.7 


NTH DISTRICT 











90.0 



Alamance 


165 


148 V2 


I6V2 


90.0 


Chatham 


25 


22 Vi 


2Vi 


90.0 


Orange 


65 


56 


9 


86.1 


TOTAL 


255 


111 


IX 


89.0 


I6TH DISTRICT 










Robeson 


137 


123 


14 


89.7 


Scotland 


25 


'\ 


1 


84.0 


TOTAL 


K.2 


144 


IX 


88.8 


17 TH DISTRICT 










Caswell 


20 


1 3 Vi 


6V2 


67.5 


Rockingham 


80 


68 


12 


85.0 


Stokes 


30 


I8V2 


II 1/2 


61.6 


Surry 


4S 


3 IVi 


1 3 Vi 


70.0 


TOTAL 


175 


131 Vi 


43 Vi 


75.1 


IHTH DISTRICT 










Guilford 


323 


269 Vi 


53 Vi 


83.4 



48 



UTILIZATION OF CRIMINAL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS 
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

1976 Calendar Year 



19TH DISTRICT 


Days 
Scheduled 


Days 

II. Ill 


Days 
I nused 


Used 


Cabarrus 


75 


69 % 


5'/2 


92.6 


Montgomery 


30 


24 


6 


80.0 


Randolph 


70 


59 


11 


84.2 


Rowan 


105 


82 


23 


78.0 


TOTAL 


280 


234 % 


45 % 


83.7 


20TH DISTRICT 










Anson 


4D 


29% 


10 Vi 


73.7 


Moore 


4U 


33 


7 


82.5 


Richmond 


4^ 


36 


9 


80.0 


Stanly 


45 


44 


1 


97.7 


Union 


70 


52 


18 


74.2 


TOTAL 


240 


194 % 


45% 


81.0 


2 1ST DISTRICT 











Forsyth 



1ND DISTRICT 



Avery 
Madison 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 
TOTA L 



220 



177 



20 
30 
10 

4() 

8 

108 



43 



80.4 



Alexander 


20 


15Vi 


4Vi 


77.5 


Davidson 


so 


55 '/2 


24 Vi 


69.3 


Davie 


20 


12'/2 


7% 


62.5 


Iredell 


75 


53 


22 


70.6 


TOTAL 


195 


136 % 


58% 


70.0 


2 3RD DISTRICT 










Alleghany 


10 


5 


5 


50.0 


Ashe 


18 


15 


3 


83.3 


Wilkes 


55 


50 Vi 


4 


91.8 


Yadkin 


18 


13'/: 


4'/2 


75.0 


TOTAL 


llll 


84 


17 


83.1 


24TH DISTRICT 











17% 


2% 


87.5 


19% 


10% 


65.0 


5 


5 


50.0 


34 


6 


85.0 


6 


i 


75.0 


82 


2o 


75.9 



25 TH DISTRICT 


Days 

Scheduled 


Days 
Held 


Days 
I nused 


% 

I'sed 


Burke 


1 1 ^ 


98 1/2 


14% 


87.1 


Caldwell 


80 


67% 


12% 


84.3 


Catawba 


150 


1121/2 


37 % 


75.0 


TOTAL 


343 


278 % 


64% 


81.1 


26TH DISTRICT 










Mecklenburg 


639 % 


570 


69% 


89.1 


27 TH DISTRICT 










Cleveland 


105 


84% 


20% 


80.4 


Gaston 


198 


165 


33 


83.3 


Lincoln 


60 


44 


16 


73.3 


TOTAL 


,6 5 


293 % 


69% 


80.8 


28TH DISTRICT 










Buncombe 


193 


145 


4K 


75.1 


29TH DISTRICT 










Henderson 


50 


!7 


13 


74.0 


McDowell 


60 


49 


II 


81.6 


Polk 


15 


1 3 Vi 


1% 


90.0 


Rutherford 


45 


41 


4 


91.1 


Transylvania 


25 


20 


5 


80.0 


TOTAL 


1^5 


160% 


34 % 


82.3 


30TH DISTRICT 










Cherokee 


1 1 


8'/: 


2% 


77.2 


Clay 


6 


1 % 


4% 


25.0 


Graham 


6 


2 


4 


33.3 


Haywood 


65 


46 Vi 


18% 


71.5 


Jackson 


25 


23 


2 


92.0 


Macon 


9 


6'/2 


2% 


72.2 


Swain 


11 


6% 


4% 


59.0 


TOTAL 


133 


94% 


38 % 


71.0 



GRAND TOTAL 



7,196% 5915 



1.281 



82.1 



49 



ESTATES CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF BEFORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 











Disposed 




Increase 




Pending 


Filed 


Total 


of 


Pending 




or 


1ST DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


1976 


Caseload 


1976 


12/31/76 


Decrease 


Camden 


41 


27 


70 


11 


39 


- 


4 


Chowan 


146 


93 


239 


106 


133 


- 


1 1 


Currituck 


79 


»g 


178 


7S 


Mil 


+ 


24 


Dare 


280 


95 


375 


64 


HI 


+ 


11 


Gates 


141 


60 


203 


7') 


124 


- 


19 


Pasquotank 


203 


139 


$42 


156 


186 


- 


17 


Perquimans 


108 


83 


I'M 


46 


145 


+ 


17 


TOTAL 


1002 


5% 


1598 


557 


1041 


+ 


39 


2ND DISTRICT 
















Beaufort 


W) 


2xs 


654 


247 


407 


+ 


IX 


Hyde 


27 


50 


77 


32 


4^ 


+ 


IX 


Martin 


233 


138 


171 


177 


194 


- 


39 


Tyrrell 


l'» 


29 


4X 


24 


24 


+ 


5 


Washington 


xo 


60 


140 


^ 


85 


+ 


5 


TOTAL 


728 


562 


1290 


535 


755 


+ 


27 


3RD DISTRICT 
















Carteret 


290 


266 


556 


222 


334 


+ 


44 


Craven 


348 


280 


628 


248 


380 


+ 


32 


Pamlico 


64 


56 


I2() 


56 


(.4 






Pitt 


543 


392 


935 


389 


546 


+ 


3 


TOTAL 


1245 


994 


2239 


915 


1324 


+ 


71 


4TH DISTRICT 














» 


Duplin 


S05 


I'M 


499 


175 


324 


4 


19 


Jones 


hi) 


(4 


124 


>2 


72 


+ 


12 


Onslow 


444 


[86 


630 


[65 


465 


+ 


21 


Sampson 


372 


237 


609 


240 


369 


- 


3 


TOTAL 


1181 


681 


1862 


632 


1230 


+ 


49 


5TH DISTRICT 
















New Hanover 


720 


417 


1137 


233 


904 


+ 


1X4 


Pender 


116 


99 


215 


98 


117 


+ 


1 


TOTAL 


836 


516 


1352 


331 


1021 


+ 


8 85 


6TH DISTRICT 
















Bertie 


224 


in 


117 


136 


201 


— 


21 


Halifax 


542 


294 


836 


216 


620 


+ 


7X 


Hertford 


172 


112 


284 


114 


170 


- 


2 


Northampton 


165 


141 


308 


120 


188 


f 


21 


TOTAL 


1103 


662 


1765 


586 


1179 


+ 


76 


7TH DISTRICT 
















Edgecombe 


413 


2 77 


6'M) 


310 


580 


- 


33 


Nash 


17'J 


290 


769 


100 


469 


- 


10 


Wilson 


641 


303 


944 


293 


651 


+ 


10 


TOTAL 


1533 


870 


2403 


903 


1500 


- 


33 



51 



ESTATES (ASKS PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OE BEFORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 











Disposed 




Increase 




Pending 


Filed 


Total 


of 


Pending 




or 


STH DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


1976 


Caseload 


1976 


12/31/76 


Decrease 


Greene 


107 


93 


200 


96 


l()4 


- 


3 


Lenoir 


368 


295 


663 


310 


553 


- 


15 


Wavne 


650 


193 


1043 


422 


621 


- 


29 


TOTAL 


1125 


781 


1906 


828 


1078 


— 


47 


9TH DISTRICT 
















Franklin 


295 


124 


419 


11 1 


508 


+ 


1 ! 


Granville 


232 


186 


418 


182 


236 


+ 


4 


Person 


203 


135 


338 


137 


201 


- 


2 


Vance 


257 


239 


496 


159 


337 


+ 


xo 


Warren 


250 


115 


365 


122 


243 


- 


7 


TOTAL 


1237 


799 


2036 


711 


1325 


+ 


88 


10TH DISTRICT 

















Wake 



1793 



1038 



2831 



899 



1932 



+ 139 



1 1 TH DISTRICT 



Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 
TOTAL 


516 

652 

318 

1486 


274 
436 
144 
854 


790 
1088 

462 
2340 


324 
507 
152 
983 


466 

SKI 

310 
1357 


- 50 

- 71 

- 8 

- 129 


12TH DISTRICT 














Cumberland 
Hoke 
rOTAI 


SIM 

95 
898 


706 

97 

803 


1509 

192 

1701 


733 

HI 

816 


776 
109 
885 


- 27 
+ 14 

- 14 


I3TH DISTRICT 














Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 
TOTAL 


124 
168 
320 
612 


104 
140 
208 
452 


228 

108 

528 

1064 


82 
177 
171 
430 


146 
131 
357 
634 


+ 22 
- 37 
+ 37 
+ 22 


NTH DISTRICT 















Durham 



1345 



82? 



2170 



764 



1406 



+ 61 



1 5 TH DISTRICT 



Alamance 


484 


601 


1085 


585 


soo 


+ 16 


Chatham 


326 


176 


502 


194 


508 


- 18 


Orange 


437 


296 


733 


181 


552 


+ 115 


TOTAL 


1247 


1073 


2320 


960 


1360 


+ 113 


I6TH DISTRICT 














Robeson 


689 


463 


1152 


425 


727 


+ 38 


Scotland 


219 


122 


341 


119 


222 


+ 3 


TOTAL 


908 


SHS 


1493 


544 


949 


+ 41 



S2 



ESTATES CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF BEFORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 











Disposed 




In 


crease 




Pending 


Filed 


Total 


of 


Pending 




or 


17TH DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


1976 


Caseload 


1976 


12/31/76 


Decrease 


Caswell 


115 


101 


218 


10(1 


MX 


f 


3 


Rockingham 


625 


457 


1082 


4X1 


(,ni 


- 


24 


Stokes 


152 


127 


279 


122 


157 


+ 


5 


Surry 


451 


221 


672 


230 


442 


- 


9 


TOTAL 


1343 


908 


2251 


933 


1318 




2S 


18TH DISTRICT 
















Guilford 


2728 


1373 


4101 


1672 


2429 


- 


299 


I9TH DISTRICT 
















Cabarrus 


582 


473 


1055 


424 


631 


+ 


4') 


Montgomery 


173 


135 


308 


12: 


1X6 


+ 


13 


Randolph 


454 


388 


842 


348 


494 


+ 


4(1 


Rowan 


584 


613 


1197 


370 


827 


+ 


243 


TOTAL 


1793 


1609 


3402 


1264 


2138 


+ 


345 


20TH DISTRICT 
















Anson 


415 


122 


537 


12(1 


417 


+ 


2 


Moore 


492 


304 


796 


329 


467 


- 


2S 


Richmond 


329 


220 


549 


187 


162 


+ 


33 


Stanly 


793 


114 


1107 


242 


865 


+ 


72 


Union 


431 


306 


737 


292 


445 


+ 


14 


TOTAL 


2460 


1266 


3726 


1170 


2556 


+ 


% 


2 1ST DISTRICT 














• 



Forsyth 



1912 



1398 



3310 



1431 



1879 



- 33 



22 ND DISTRICT 



Alexander 


93 


90 


183 


102 


XI 


Davidson 


653 


474 


1127 


495 


632 


Davie 


95 


100 


195 


7X 


II 7 


Iredell 


676 


438 


1114 


530 


584 


TOTAL 


1517 


1102 


2619 


1205 


1414 


23 RD DISTRICT 












Alleghany 


l >2 


XI 


173 


<>2 


XI 


Ashe 


110 


104 


214 


99 


115 


Wilkes 


27s 


204 


479 


1X2 


297 


Yadkin 


216 


179 


395 


155 


240 


TOTAL 


693 


568 


1261 


528 


733 


24 TH DISTRICT 












Avery 


100 


69 


169 


66 


103 


Madison 


149 


99 


248 


XI) 


168 


Mitchell 


158 


96 


254 


IX 


216 


Watauga 


MX 


I 15 


233 


65 


168 


Yancey 


101 


68 


169 


78 


91 


TOTAL 


626 


447 


1073 


327 


746 



I? 

21 

22 
92 

SIB 



+ 5 

+ 22 

+ 24 

+ 40 



+ 58 

+ 50 

- 10 

+ 120 



53 



ESTATES CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OE BEEORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 











Disposed 




Increase 




Pending 


Filed 


Total 


of 


Pending 




or 


2STH DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


1976 


Caseload 


1976 


12/31/76 


Decrease 


Burke 


661 


295 


956 


260 


696 


+ 


$5 


Caldwell 


410 


257 


667 


231 


436 


+ 


26 


Catawba 


737 


425 


1162 


$67 


795 


+ 


sx 


TOTAL 


1808 


977 


2785 


858 


1927 


+ 


119 


26TH DISTRICT 
















Mecklenburg 


3187 


1945 


5132 


1979 


3153 


- 


14 


2'TH DISTRICT 
















Cleveland 


$91 


340 


731 


318 


413 


+ 


22 


Gaston 


801 


00X 


1409 


468 


941 


+ 


140 


Lincoln 


235 


191 


426 


202 


224 


- 


11 


TOTAL 


1427 


1139 


2566 


988 


1578 


+ 


151 


28 TH DISTRICT 
















Buncombe 


2162 


1116 


3278 


1061 


2217 


+ 


55 


29TH DISTRICT 
















Henderson 


506 


363 


869 


$56 


513 


+ 


7 


McDowell 


241 


123 


364 


IX') 


175 


- 


66 


Polk 


204 


xo 


284 


IDS 


17') 


- 


25 


Rutherford 


558 


237 


595 


234 


$61 


+ 


3 


Transvlvania 


2 IX 


141 


379 


128 


251 


+ 


1 ! 


TOTAL 


1547 


944 


2491 


1012 


1479 


— 


68 


SOTH DISTRICT 
















Cherokee 


126 


77 


203 


XI 


120 


- 


6 


Cla> 


2? 


29 


51 


19 


32 


+ 


10 


Graham 


4-- 


49 


94 


37 


S7 


+ 


12 


Ha> wood 


336 


230 


566 


208 


358 


+ 


22 


Jackson 


1X0 


121 


101 


96 


205 


+ 


25 


Macon 


207 


120 


(27 


X4 


243 


+ 


36 


Swain 


75 


73 


148 


76 


72 


- 


3 


TOTAL 


991 


699 


1690 


603 


1087 


+ 


')(, 


GRAND TOTAL 


42473 


27582 


70055 


26425 


43630 


+ 1157 



54 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH HIGHEST RATIOS OF ESTATES 
DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Brunswick 

Alexander 

Alamance 

Alleghany 

McDowell 

Swain 

Tyrrell 

Cumberland 

Green 

Iredell 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 


Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


308 


177 


57.5 


183 


102 


55.9 


1085 


585 


53.9 


173 


92 


53.2 


364 


189 


51.9 


148 


76 


51.4 


48 


24 


50.0 


1509 


733 


48.6 


200 


96 


48.0 


1114 


530 


47.6 


701 


264 


37.7 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH LOWEST RATIOS OF ESTATES 
DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Dare 

New Hanover 

Stanley 

Anson 

Perquimans 

Orange 

Macon 

Halifax 

Onslow 

Franklin 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 


Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


375 


64 


17.1 


1137 


233 


20.5 


1107 


242 


21.9 


537 


120 


22.3 


191 


46 


24.1 


733 


181 


24.7 


327 


84 


25.7 


836 


216 


25.8 


630 


165 


26.2 


419 


111 


26.5 


701 


264 


37.7 



55 



U.FS OF ESTATE CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT, DEC EMBER 31, 1976 



1ST DISTRICT 

Camden 

Percentage of Total 
Chowan 

Percentage of Total 
Currituck 

Percentage of Total 
Dare 

Percentage of Total 
Gates 

Percentage of Total 
Pasquotank 

Percentage of Total 
Perquimans 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



total 
fending 


Less than 
30 Days 


30-90 
Days 


>»l-18fl 
Days 


181 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To 6 Years 


6 Yea 
To 10 Y 


39 


4 
10.3 


6 
15.4 


6 

15.4 


3 

7.7 


6 
15.4 


6 
15.4 


3 

7.7 


4 
10.3 


133 


8 
6.0 


12 
9.0 


10 

7.5 


19 
14.3 


21 
15.8 


21 
15.8 


13 
9.8 


29 
21.8 


103 


2 
1.9 


8 

1 s 


23 
22.3 


20 
19.4 


18 

17.5 


14 
13.6 


7 
6.8 


11 
10.7 


311 


6 

1 *> 


6 

I 9 


12 
3.9 


37 
11.9 


37 
11.9 


49 
15.8 


37 
11.9 


126 
40.5 


124 


4 
3.2 


8 
6.5 


11 
8.9 


ll 
8.9 


26 
21.0 


22 
17.7 


26 
21.0 


15 
12.1 


Iso 


II 
5.9 


19 
10.2 


17 
9 l 


35 
18.8 


33 
17.7 


IS 

9.7 


17 
9 1 


36 
19.4 


145 


5 
3.4 


6 
4.1 


16 
11.0 


19 
13.1 


26 
17.9 


31 
21.4 


16 
11.0 


26 
17.9 


1041 


40 

1.8 


6^ 
6.2 


95 

9.! 


144 

13.8 


167 
16.0 


161 

15.5 


119 
11.4 


247 
23.7 



: 6 



! 



0.8 



3 

0.3 



2.XD DISTRICT 

Beaufort 

Percentage of Total 
H\de 

Percentage of Total 
Martin 

Percentage of Total 
Tj rrell 

Percentage of Total 
Washington 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



407 

45 
194 

24 

85 

755 



16 

\ 9 



9 

4 6 



8 
9.4 
33 
4.4 



30 


41 


51 


39 


29 


7.4 


10.1 


12.5 


9.6 


7.1 


3 


14 


14 


6 


3 


6.7 


31.1 


31.1 


13.3 


6.7 


IS 


14 


31 


30 


32 


9.3 


7.2 


16.0 


15.5 


16.5 


4 


4 


1 1 


1 


2 


6.7 


16.7 


45.8 


4.2 


8.3 


12 


11 


12 


10 


1 1 


4 1 


12.9 


14.1 


11.8 


12.9 


67 


84 


119 


86 


77 


8.9 


11.1 


15.8 


11.4 


10.2 



!3 



S 1 

1 


41.3 
4 




2.2 


8.9 




20 


40 




0.3 


20.6 




1 
4.2 


1 
4.2 




2 


16 


2 


2 4 


18.8 


2.4 


57 


229 


2 


7.5 


30.3 


0.3 



I 2 
I 

0.1 



3RD DISTRICT 

Carteret 

Percentage of Total 
C ra\ en 

Percentage of Total 
Pamlico 

Percentage of Total 
Pitt 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



334 

380 

64 

546 

1324 



13 


28 


39 


67 


42 


55 


35 


43 


8 


3.9 


S 4 


11.7 


20.1 


12.6 


16.5 


10.5 


12.9 


2.4 


14 


33 


57 


83 


49 


49 


14 


61 


IS 


3.7 


8.7 


15.0 


21.8 


12.9 


12.9 


3.7 


16.1 


4 7 


4 


8 


6 


14 


6 


10 


4 


4 


8 


6.3 


12.5 


9.4 


21.9 


9.4 


15.6 


6.3 


6.3 


12.5 


15 


54 


70 


94 


73 


57 


37 


52 


66 


2 7 


9.9 


12.8 


17.2 


13.4 


10.4 


6.8 


9.5 


12.1 


46 


121 


172 


258 


170 


171 


90 


160 


100 


5.5 


9.3 


1 V.0 


19.5 


12.8 


12.9 


<>.K 


12.1 


7.6 



4 

I 2 

_■> 

0.5 



28 
5.1 
34 
2.6 



4TH DISTRICT 

Duplin 

Percentage of Total 
Jones 

Percentage of Total 
( i 

Percentage of Total 
Sampson 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of I otal 



124 

72 

465 

369 

1230 



IS 


29 


41 


64 


49 


55 


40 


SI 




4.6 


9 ii 


12.7 


19.8 


15.1 


17.0 


12.3 


9 6 




6 


4 


10 


1 I 


8 


10 


8 


14 


1 


8 1 


5.6 


13.9 


15.3 


11.1 


13.9 


111 


19.4 


I 4 


13 


30 


29 


61 


56 


75 


62 


77 


61 


2.8 


6.5 


6.2 


13.1 


12.0 


16.1 


13.3 


16.6 


13.1 


11 


17 


44 


64 


59 


60 


44 


70 




3.0 


4.6 


1 1.9 


17.3 


16.0 


16.3 


1 1.9 


19.0 




4S 


SO 


124 


200 


172 


200 


154 


192 


62 


.3.7 


6.5 


10.1 


16.3 


14.0 


16.3 


12.5 


15.6 


5.0 



0.2 



o.i 



56 



AGES OF ESTATE CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



5TH DISTRICT 



total 
Pending 



Less than 
JO Days 



30-90 
Days 



91-180 
Days 



6 Years 



10 Years 



Greater 



181 Days 1 Year 2 Years 4 Years „.„., ■ „■„,, u .*..« 

TolYear To 2 Years To4 Years To6Years TolOYears To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



New Hanover 


904 


38 


7S 


(4 


1 1 1 


122 


169 


101 


141 


62 


IX 


Percentage of Total 




4 2 


8.6 


7.1 


12.3 


13.5 


18.7 


11.2 


15.6 


6.9 


2.0 


Pender 


117 


10 


16 


7 


20 


16 


24 


6 


9 


5 


4 


Percentage of Total 




8.5 


13.7 


6.0 


17.1 


13.7 


20.5 


5 1 


7 7 


4 1 


3.4 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


1021 


48 


94 


71 


131 


138 


193 


107 


150 


67 


22 


Percentage of Total 




4.7 


9.2 


7.11 


12.8 


13.5 


18.9 


10.5 


14.7 


6.6 


2 2 


6TH DISTRICT 
























Bertie 


201 


10 


11 


23 


35 


25 


31 


17 


32 


15 


2 


Percentage of Total 




5.0 


5.5 


11.4 


17.4 


12.4 


15.4 


8.5 


15.9 


7.5 


10 


Halifax 


620 


22 


48 


44 


90 


84 


118 


54 


84 


57 


1') 


Percentage of Total 




3.5 


7.7 


7.1 


14.5 


13.5 


19.0 


8.7 


13.5 


>; 2 


1 1 


Hertford 


170 


11 


18 


13 


27 


30 


26 


7 


37 


1 




Percentage of Total 




6.5 


10.6 


7.6 


15.9 


17.6 


15.3 


4.1 


21.8 


6 




Northampton 


188 


9 


19 


30 


46 


21 


24 


1 1 


28 






Percentage of Total 




4.8 


10.1 


16.0 


24.5 


11.2 


12.8 


S9 


14.9 






DISTRICT TOTALS 


1179 


52 


% 


110 


198 


160 


199 


89 


181 


73 


21 


Percentage of Total 




4.4 


8.1 


9.3 


16.8 


13.6 


16.9 


7.5 


15.4 


6.2 


1.8 


7TH DISTRICT 
























Edgecombe 


380 


8 


27 


43 


62 


55 


51 


31 


39 


41 


21 


Percentage of Total 




2.1 


7.1 


11.3 


16.3 


14.5 


13.4 


8.2 


10.3 


10.8 


6 1 


Nash 


469 


24 


34 


42 


84 


60 


47 


31 


63 


55 


29 


Percentage of Total 




5.1 


7.2 


9.0 


17.9 


12.8 


10.0 


6.6 


13.4 


11.7 


6.2 


Wilson 


651 


22 


35 


4') 


85 


63 


62 


32 


98 


110 


95 


Percentage of Total 




3.4 


5.4 


7.5 


13.1 


9.7 


9.5 


4') 


15.1 


16.9 


14.6 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


1500 


54 


96 


134 


231 


178 


160 


94 


200 


110 


95 


Percentage of Total 




3.6 


6.4 


8.9 


15.4 


11.9 


10.7 


6.3 


13.3 


13.7 


9.8 


8TH DISTRICT 
























Greene 


104 


7 


7 


14 


21 


9 


13 


10 


23 






Percentage of Total 




6.7 


6.7 


13.5 


20.2 


8.7 


12.5 


9.6 


22.1 






Lenoir 


353 


15 


29 


35 


65 


79 


45 


26 


27 


19 


13 


Percentage of Total 




4.2 


x 2 


9.9 


18.4 


22.4 


12.7 


74 


7.6 


5.4 


3.7 


Wayne 


621 


14 


^2 


63115 


79 


65 


36 


67 


77 


33 




Percentage of Total 




5.5 


8 4 


10.1 


18.5 


12.7 


10.5 


5.8 


10.8 


12.4 


5.3 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


1078 


56 


88 


112 


201 


167 


123 


72 


117 


% 


46 


Percentage of Total 




5.2 


8.2 


10.4 


18.6 


15.5 


11.4 


6.7 


10.9 


8.9 


4.3 


9TH DISTRICT 

























Franklin 

Percentage of Total 
Granville 

Percentage of Total 
Person 

Percentage of Total 
Vance 

Percentage of Total 
Warren 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



508 


4 


X 


25 


54 


61 


50 


34 


72 








1 3 


2.6 


8.1 


17.5 


19.8 


16.2 


11.0 


23.4 






2.V, 


13 


IX 


27 


49 


27 


35 


13 


26 


2s 


3 




5.5 


7.6 


11.4 


20.8 


11.4 


14.8 


5.5 


11.0 


10.6 


1 1 


201 


7 


24 


23 


41 


32 


27 


15 


14 


14 


4 




3.5 


11.9 


11.4 


20.4 


15.9 


13.4 


7.5 


7.0 


7.0 


2 


337 


8 


26 


36 


76 


58 


57 


19 


57 








2.4 


7.7 


10.7 


22.6 


17.2 


16.9 


5.6 


16.9 






241 


10 


18 


14 


29 


42 


47 


25 


28 


21 


4 




4.1 


7 4 


7.8 


11.9 


17.3 


19.3 


10.3 


11.5 


8.6 


1.6 


1325 


42 


94 


13(1 


249 


220 


216 


1116 


197 


60 


11 




3.2 


7.1 


9.S 


18.8 


16.6 


16.3 


8.0 


14.9 


4.5 


11.8 



57 



VGES OF ESTATE CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



10TH DISTRICT 

Wake 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



local 
Pending 

1932 
1932 



Less than 
M> Days 

68 

3 5 
68 

3.5 



Days 
159 

s 2 

I Si) 

8.2 



91-180 
Days 

IS') 

9.8 

189 

9.8 



181 Days I Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

To 1 Year To 2 Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Y ears Than 20 Years 



353 
18.3 
353 
18.3 



219 
11.3 
219 
11.3 



216 
11.2 
216 
11.2 



126 
6.5 
126 
6.5 



202 
10.5 
202 
10.5 



27S 
14.2 
275 
14.2 



125 
6.5 
125 
6.5 



1 1 TH DISTRICT 

Harnett 

Percentage of Total 
Johnston 

Percentage of Total 
Lee 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



466 


15 


$7 


51 


91 


51 


77 


47 


47 


14 


16 




3.2 


- 9 


10.9 


19.5 


10.9 


16.5 


10.1 


10.1 


7.3 


3.4 


581 


23 


59 


90 


182 


68 


53 


20 


86 








4 


10.2 


15.5 


31.3 


11.7 


9 1 


14 


14.8 






310 


10 


It. 


26 


46 


51 


34 


43 


59 


15 


10 




3.2 


5.2 


8.4 


14.8 


16.5 


11.0 


13.9 


19.0 


4X 


3.2 


357 


48 


112 


167 


319 


170 


164 


1(0 


192 


49 


26 




3.5 


8 J 


12.3 


23.5 


12.5 


12.1 


8.1 


14.1 


3.6 


1.9 



i:th district 

Cumberland 

Percentage of Total 
Hoke 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



776 


25 


71 


101 


163 


178 


85 


54 


57 


46 


16 




3.2 


'). 1 


13.0 


21.0 


22.9 


11.0 


44 


7.3 


5.9 


2.1 


109 


5 


5 


12 


14 


24 


23 


6 


19 


1 






4 6 


4.6 


11.0 


12.8 


22.0 


21.1 


5.5 


17.4 


9 




885 


30 


76 


113 


177 


202 


108 


40 


76 


47 


16 




3.4 


8.6 


12.8 


20.0 


22.8 


12.2 


4.5 


8.6 


5.3 


1.8 



I3TH DISTRICT 

Bladen 

Percentage of Total 
Brunswick 

Percentage of Total 
Columbus 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



I4(. 


11 


18 


16 


25 


27 


23 


9 


17 








7.5 


12.3 


11.0 


17.1 


18.5 


15.8 


6 2 


11.6 






131 


7 


18 


24 


20 


18 


25 


6 


13 








5 3 


13.7 


18.3 


15.3 


13.7 


19.1 


4 6 


9.9 






357 


19 


28 


43 


74 


47 


49 


27 


43 


IX 


9 




5.3 


7.8 


12.0 


20.7 


13.2 


13.7 


7.6 


12.0 


5.0 


2 5 


634 


37 


64 


83 


119 


92 


97 


42 


73 


18 


9 




5.8 


10.1 


13.1 


18.8 


14.5 


15.3 


6.6 


11.5 


2.8 


1.4 



14TH DISTRICT 

Durham 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



1406 


64 


96 


140 


248 


193 


233 


1 is 


145 


101 


49 




4 6 


6 X 


10.0 


17.6 


13.7 


16.6 


9.6 


10.3 


7 1 


l 5 


1406 


64 


96 


140 


248 


193 


233 


135 


145 


103 


49 




4.6 


6.8 


10.0 


17.6 


13.7 


16.6 


9.6 


10.3 


7.3 


3.5 



/ 577/ DISTRICT 

Alamance 

Percentage of Total 
Chatham 

Percentage of Total 
Orange 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



500 


24 


55 


77 


128 


102 


66 


24 


24 








4.8 


11.0 


15.4 


25.6 


20.4 


13.2 


4.8 


4X 






308 


1 I 


28 


29 


53 


51 


49 


35 


so 








4.2 


9 l 


9.4 


17.2 


16.6 


15.9 


11.4 


16.2 






552 


20 


42 


54 


92 


81 


85 


72 


73 


11 


2 




3.6 


7.6 


9.8 


16.7 


14.7 


15.4 


13.0 


13.2 


s 6 


04 


360 


S7 


125 


160 


273 


234 


200 


131 


147 


31 


2 




4.2 


9.2 


11.8 


20.1 


17.2 


14.7 


9.6 


10.8 


2.3 


0.1 



sx 



AGES OF ESTATE CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 





Total 


1 ess than 


30-90 


91-180 


181 Days 


1 Year 


2 Years 


4 Years 


6 Years 


10 Years 


Greater 


16TH DISTRICT 


Pending 


30 Days 


Days 


Days 


To 1 Year 


To 2 Years 


To 4 Years 


To 6 Years 


To 10 Years 


To 20 Years 


Than 20 Years 


Robeson 


727 


55 


4S 


75 


111 


137 


125 


96 


102 


1 




Percentage of Total 




4.8 


6.2 


10.3 


15.3 


18.8 


17.2 


13.2 


14.0 


1 




Scotland 


222 


5 


19 


25 


35 


16 


45 


20 


41 


16 




Percentage of Total 




2 3 


8.6 


11.3 


15.8 


7.2 


20.3 


'Ml 


18.5 


7.2 




DISTRICT TOTALS 


949 


4(1 


64 


100 


146 


153 


170 


116 


143 


17 




Percentage of Total 




4.2 


6.7 


10.5 


15.4 


16.1 


17.9 


12.2 


15.1 


1.8 




I7TH DISTRICT 
























Caswell 


118 


l > 


14 


16 


25 


20 


12 


6 


4 


9 


3 


Percentage of Total 




7.6 


11.9 


13.6 


21.2 


16.9 


10.2 


5.1 


3.4 


7.6 


2.5 


Rockingham 


601 


14 


68 


50 


75 


77 


109 


74 


129 






Percentage of Total 




3.2 


11.3 


8.3 


12.5 


12.8 


18.1 


12.3 


21.5 






Stokes 


157 


13 


11 


27 


37 


28 


11 


16 


14 






Percentage of Total 




x 3 


7 


17.2 


23.6 


17.8 


7.0 


10.2 


8.9 






Surry 


442 


24 


32 


45 


94 


53 


56 


31 


19 


49 


19 


Percentage of Total 




5.4 


7.2 


10.2 


21.3 


12.0 


12.7 


7.0 


XX 


111 


4.3 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


1318 


65 


125 


138 


231 


178 


188 


127 


186 


58 


22 


Percentage of Total 




4 9 


9.5 


10.5 


17.5 


13.5 


14.3 


9.6 


14.1 


4.4 


1.7 


18TH DISTRICT 
























Guilford 


2429 


102 


213 


259 


426 


425 


264 


162 


245 


232 


101 


Percentage of Total 




4 2 


XX 


10.7 


17.5 


17.5 


10.9 


6.7 


10.1 


9.6 


4.2 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


2429 


102 


213 


259 


426 


425 


264 


162 


245 


232 


10! 


Percentage of Total 




4.2 


8.8 


10.7 


ns 


17.5 


10.9 


6.7 


10.1 


9.6 


4.2 


19TH DISTRICT 
























Cabarrus 


631 


21 


53 


78 


107 


84 


91 


109 


51 


31 


4 


Percentage of Total 




3.6 


X4 


12.4 


17.0 


13.3 


14.4 


17.3 


XI 


4.9 


0.6 


Montgomery 


1X6 


10 


13 


23 


31 


32 


37 


23 


15 


2 




Percentage of Total 




S4 


7.0 


12.4 


16.7 


17.2 


19.9 


12.4 


X 1 


11 




Randolph 


494 


IX 


61 


62 


105 


74 


66 


45 


43 


15 


5 


Percentage of Total 




3.6 


12.3 


12.6 


21.3 


15.0 


13.4 


9.1 


8.7 


3.0 


1.0 


Rowan 


827 


39 


80 


136 


137 


93 


113 


71 


158 






Percentage of Total 




4 7 


9.7 


16.4 


16.6 


11.2 


13.7 


X6 


19.1 






DISTRICT TOTALS 


2138 


90 


207 


299 


380 


283 


307 


248 


267 


48 


9 


Percentage of Total 




4.2 


9.7 


14.0 


17.8 


13.2 


14.4 


11.6 


12.5 


2.2 


0.4 


20TH DISTRICT 
























Anson 


417 


5 


15 


23 


IX 


43 


55 


46 


191 


1 




Percentage of Total 




1 2 


3.6 


5.5 


9.1 


10.3 


13.2 


11.0 


45.8 


2 




Moore 


467 


20 


42 


61 


76 


75 


68 


47 


78 






Percentage of Total 




4.3 


9.0 


13.1 


16.3 


16.1 


14.6 


10.1 


16.7 






Richmond 


362 


16 


35 


31 


71 


65 


74 


42 


28 






Percentage of Total 




4.4 


9.7 


8.6 


19.6 


18.0 


20.4 


11.6 


7 7 






Stanly 


865 


22 


4') 


65 


94 


60 


53 


51 


126 


204 


141 


Percentage of Total 




2.5 


<>7 


7.5 


10.9 


6.9 


6.1 


5.9 


14.6 


23.6 


16.3 


Union 


445 


28 


41 


58 


79 


70 


76 


42 


29 


13 


9 


Percentage of Total 




6.3 


9.2 


13.0 


17.8 


15.7 


17.1 


9.4 


6.5 


2.9 


2 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


2556 


VI 


182 


238 


358 


313 


326 


228 


452 


218 


150 


Percentage of Total 




3.6 


7.1 


9J 


14.0 


12.2 


12.8 


8.9 


17.7 


8.5 


5.9 



59 



U.KS OF ESTATE CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CEERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 

^ I ST DISTRICT Tolal Lessthan 30-90 «* 1 - 1 80 181 Days I Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

IVndine 30Da>s Days Days To I Year To 2 Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 

Forsvth 1879 63 175 222 369 283 230 III 138 159 129 

Percentage of Total 3.4 9.3 11.8 19.6 15.1 12.2 5.9 7.3 8.5 6.9 

DISTRICT TOTALS 1879 63 175 222 369 283 230 111 138 159 129 

Percentage of Total 3.4 9.3 11.8 19.6 15.1 12.2 5.9 7.3 8.5 6.9 

::.\p DISTRICT 

Alexander 81 

Percentage of Total 
Davidson 632 

Percentage of Total 
Davie 117 

Percentage of Total 
Iredell 584 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 1414 

DISTRICT TOTALS 

2JRD DISTRICT 



2 


8 


14 


22 


11 


15 


2.5 


9.9 


17.3 


27.2 


13.6 


18.5 


38 


59 


83 


125 


107 


77 


6.0 


9.3 


13.1 


19.8 


16.9 


12.2 


6 


6 


18 


25 


20 


15 


5.1 


5 1 


15.4 


21.4 


17.1 


12.8 


21 


54 


82 


123 


83 


70 


3.6 


9.2 


14.0 


21.1 


14.2 


12.0 


67 


127 


197 


295 


221 


177 


4.7 


9.(1 


13.9 


20.9 


15.6 


12.5 



1 2 




is 


50 


6.0 


7.9 


3 


IX 


2.6 


15.4 


49 


37 


8.4 


6.3 


99 


105 



103 


3 


8 


13 


22 


16 


15 


8 


9 




2.9 


7 8 


12.6 


21.4 


15.5 


14.6 


7.8 


8.7 


168 


5 


23 


20 


29 


28 


16 


IK 


13 




3.0 


13.7 


11.9 


17.3 


16.7 


9.5 


10.7 


7 7 


216 


5 


17 


31 


24 


28 


53 


31 


22 




2.3 


7.9 


14.4 


III 


13.0 


24.5 


14.4 


10.2 


168 


8 


20 


25 


32 


30 


26 


14 


9 




4.8 


11.9 


14.9 


19.0 


17.9 


15.5 


x ) 


5.4 


91 


10 


2 


13 


14 


19 


12 


5 


16 




11.0 


2 2 


14.3 


15.4 


20.9 


13.2 


5.5 


17.6 


746 


SI 


70 


102 


121 


121 


122 


76 


69 




4.2 


9.4 


13.7 


16.2 


16.2 


16.4 


10.2 


9.2 



29 


48 


50 


88 


77 


106 


114 


183 


4.2 


6.9 


7.2 


12.6 


1 1.1 


15.2 


16.4 


26.3 


10 


31 


66 


70 


62 


74 


61 


62 


2.3 


7.1 


15.1 


16.1 


14.2 


17.0 


14.0 


14.2 


31 


67 


90 


128 


112 


132 


81 


153 


3.9 


:-, 4 


11.3 


16.1 


14.1 


16.6 


10.2 


19.2 


70 


14/, 


206 


286 


251 


312 


256 


398 


J.6 


7.6 


10.7 


14.8 


13.0 


16.2 


13.3 


20.7 



44 


1 1 


7.0 


1.7 


5 


1 


4.3 


0.9 


49 


16 


8.4 


2.7 


W 


28 


6.9 


2.0 



Mleghan) 

Percentage of Total 
Ashe 

Percentage of Total 
Wilkes 297 8 27 31 62 46 37 47 20 16 3 



81 


4 


15 


9 


13 


II 


6 


6 


17 






4.9 


18.5 


11.1 


16.0 


13.6 


74 


7.4 


21.0 




1 15 


8 


14 


14 


22 


17 


15 


12 


13 






7.0 


12.2 


12.2 


19.1 


14.8 


13.0 


10.4 


11.3 




297 


8 


: 7 


31 


62 


46 


37 


47 


20 


16 




2 7 


9.1 


10.4 


20.9 


15.5 


12.5 


15.8 


6.7 


5.4 


240 


1 1 


21 


32 


47 


32 


31 


22 


26 


11 




4 6 


S N 


13.3 


19.6 


13.3 


12.9 


9.2 


10.8 


4.6 


733 


SI 


77 


86 


144 


106 


89 


87 


76 


27 




4.2 


10.5 


11.7 


19.6 


14.5 


12.1 


11.9 


10.4 


3.7 



3 


6 


2.9 


5.8 


Id 


6 


6.0 


3.6 


3 


2 


1.4 


0.9 


4 




2.4 





Percentage of Total 2.7 9.1 10.4 20.9 15.5 12.5 15.8 6.7 5.4 1.0 

Yadkin 240 II 21 32 47 32 31 22 26 II 7 

Percentage of Total 4.6 8.8 13.3 19.6 13.3 12.9 9.2 10.8 4.6 2.9 

DISTRICT TOTALS 733 31 77 86 144 106 89 87 76 27 10 

Percentage of Total 4.2 10.5 11.7 19.6 14.5 12.1 11.9 10.4 3.7 1.4 

24TII DISTRICT 

V. er> 

Percentage of Total 
Madison 

Percentage of Total 
Mitchell 

Percentage of Total 
Watauga 

Percentage of Total 
Yancej 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 746 31 70 102 121 121 122 76 69 20 14 

Percentage of Total 4.2 9.4 13.7 16.2 16.2 16.4 10.2 9.2 2.7 1.9 

25TH DISTRICT 

Burke 696 

Percentage of Total 
Caldv.ell 436 

Percentage of Total 
Catawba 795 31 67 90 128 112 132 XI 153 

Percentage of Total 3.9 8.4 11.3 H.I 14.1 16.6 10.2 19.2 0. 

DISTRICT TOTALS 1927 70 146 206 286 251 312 256 398 2 

Percentage of Total 3.6 7.6 10.7 14.8 13.0 16.2 13.3 20.7 0.1 



60 



AGES OF ESTATE CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



26TH DISTRICT 



Buncombe 

Percentage of Total 
DISTRICT TOTALS 

Percentage of Total 



total 
Pending 



Less than 
JO Days 



30-90 

Days 



91-180 
Days 



181 Days 
To I Year 



I Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

ro 2 Years To4Years To6Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



Mecklenburg 


3153 


122 


229 


298 


468 


423 


489 


290 


834 






Percentage of Total 




3.9 


7.3 


9.5 


14.8 


13.4 


15.5 


9.2 


26.5 






DISTRICT TOTALS 


3153 


122 


229 


298 


468 


423 


489 


290 


834 






Percentage of Total 




3.9 


7.3 


9.5 


14.8 


13.4 


15.5 


9.2 


26.5 






27TH DISTRICT 
























Cleveland 


413 


17 


59 


137 


80 


59 


32 


14 


15 






Percentage of Total 




4.1 


14.3 


33.2 


19.4 


14.3 


7.7 


3.4 


3.6 






Gaston 


941 


so 


44 


102 


195 


163 


114 


70 


65 


69 


19 


Percentage of Total 




5.3 


10.0 


10.8 


20.7 


17.3 


12.1 


7.4 


6.9 


7 3 


2.0 


Lincoln 


224 


19 


29 


26 


52 


32 


14 


13 


13 


23 


3 


Percentage of Total 




x 5 


12.9 


11.6 


23.2 


14.3 


6.3 


5 x 


5.8 


10.3 


1.3 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


1578 


86 


182 


265 


327 


254 


160 


97 


93 


92 


22 


Percentage of Total 




5.4 


11.5 


6.8 


20.7 


16.1 


10.1 


ft ] 


5.9 


5.8 


1.4 


28TH DISTRICT 

























2217 
2217 



61 

2 8 



152 
6.9 
152 

ft.'Ji 



203 
9.2 
203 
9.2 



333 
15.0 
333 
15.0 



330 
14.9 
330 
14.9 



396 
17.9 
396 

17.9 



257 
11.6 
257 
11.6 



479 
21.6 
479 
21.6 



s 
2 

5 

(111: 



~!9TH DISTRICT 



Henderson 


513 


29 


45 


48 


111 


51 


83 


34 


85 


21 


6 


Percentage of Total 




5 7 


X X 


9.4 


21.6 


9.9 


16.2 


6.6 


16.6 


4 1 


1.2 


McDowell 


175 


14 


16 


22 


39 


30 


30 


14 


10 






Percentage of Total 




8.0 


9.1 


12.6 


22.3 


17.1 


17.1 


XI) 


5 7 




j> 


Polk 


179 


2 


15 


13 


35 


43 


31 


13 


27 






Percentage of Total 




1 1 


X 4 


7.3 


19.6 


24.0 


17.3 


7 ! 


15.1 






Rutherford 


361 


13 


47 


41 


75 


64 


44 


27 


17 


28 


5 


Percentage of Total 




3.6 


13.0 


11.4 


20.8 


17.7 


12.2 


7 5 


4.7 


7 X 


14 


Transylvania 


251 


17 


7 


32 


45 


36 


47 


37 


27 


2 


1 


Percentage of Total 




6.8 


2.8 


12.7 


17.9 


14.3 


18.7 


14.7 


10.8 


ox 


4 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


1479 


75 


130 


156 


305 


224 


235 


125. 


166 


Ml 


12 


Percentage of Total 




5.1 


8.8 


10.5 


20.6 


15.1 


15.9 


8.5 


11.2 


},4 


0.8 


iOTH DISTRICT 
























Cherokee 


120 


5 


9 


15 


14 


14 


16 


21 


25 


1 




Percentage of Total 




4 2 


7 5 


12.5 


11.7 


11.7 


13.3 


17.5 


20.8 


0.8 




Clay 


32 


I 


5 


4 


8 


3 


8 




1 


1 




Percentage of Total 




6.3 


15.6 


12.5 


25.0 


9.4 


25.0 




3.1 


i 1 




Graham 


^7 


3 


7 


13 


8 


9 


12 


5 








Percentage of Total 




5.3 


12.3 


22.8 


14.0 


15.8 


21.1 


8.8 








Haywood 


358 


14 


35 


32 


78 


56 


61 


28 


54 






Percentage of Total 




3.9 


9.8 


xs> 


21.8 


15.6 


17.0 


' X 


15.1 






Jackson 


205 


7 


1 ! 


27 


37 


37 


43 


IX 


22 


1 




Percentage of Total 




'•4 


6.3 


13.2 


18.0 


18.0 


21.0 


8 8 


10.7 


o 5 




Macon 


243 


6 


16 


25 


47 


38 


47 


24 


40 






Percentage of Total 




2.5 


6.6 


10.3 


19.3 


15.6 


19.3 


9.9 


16.5 






Swain 


72 


3 


4 


10 


17 


14 


9 


5 


4 


4 


2 


Percentage of Total 




4.2 


5.6 


13.9 


23.6 


19.4 


12.5 


6.9 


5.6 


5.6 


2.8 


DISTRICT TOTALS 


1087 


41 ( 


HV 


126 


209 


171 


196 


101 


146 


7 


2 


Percentage of Total 




3.7 


8.2 


11.6 


19.2 


15.7 


18.0 


93 


13.4 


0.6 


0.2 


STATE TOTALS 


43630 


1754 


3603 


4779 


7618 


6304 


6179 


3852 


6305 


2226 


1010 


Percentage of Total 




4.0 


8.3 


11.0 


17.5 


14.4 


14.2 


8.8 


14.5 


5.1 


2.3 



6! 



SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
BEFORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 











Disposed 




increase 




Pending 


Filed 


Total 


of 


Pending 




or 


1ST DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


1976 


Caseload 


1976 


12/31/76 


Decrease 


Camden 


11 


22 


33 


16 


17 


+ 


6 


Chowan 


41 


X2 


125 


53 


72 


+ 


29 


Currituck 


30 


65 


95 


58 


37 


+ 


7 


Dare 


27 


SI 


108 


41 


67 


4 


40 


Gates 


56 


2' 


59 


15 


44 


+ 


X 


Pasquotank 


7s 


94 


169 


93 


76 


+ 


1 


Perquimans 


>2 


2d 


72 


58 


34 


- 


18 


TOTAL 


274 


387 


661 


314 


347 


+ 


73 


2ND DISTRICT 
















Beaufort 


332 


157 


489 


150 


339 


+ 


7 


Hyde 


29 


4S 


74 


41 


53 


+ 


4 


Martin 


122 


133 


255 


142 


113 


- 


9 


Tyrrell 


14 


21 


is 


19 


16 


t 


2 


Washington 


7S 


s>» 


134 


67 


67 


- 


8 


TOTAL 


572 


415 


987 


419 


568 




4 


3RD DISTRICT 
















Carteret 


174 


I'm 


364 


145 


219 


I 


4S 


Craven 


201 


250 


451 


264 


187 


- 


14 


Pamlico 


39 


55 


74 


27 


47 


+ 


8 


Pitt 


134 


!7'» 


513 


382 


131 


- 


3 


TOTAL 


548 


854 


1402 


818 


584 


+ 


M 


4TH DISTRICT 
















Duplin 


410 


254 


664 


245 


4 19 


+ 


9 


Jones 


35 


ss 


90 


50 


40 


+ 


5 


Onslow 


246 


314 


560 


258 


302 


+ 


56 


Sampson 


304 


177 


481 


169 


312 


+ 


X 


TOTAL 


995 


800 


1795 


722 


1073 


+ 


7K 


5TH DISTRICT 
















New Hanover 


667 


616 


1283 


27! 


1010 


+ 


343 


Pender 


235 


101 


336 


92 


244 


+ 


9 


TOTAL 


902 


717 


1619 


365 


1254 


+ 


352 


6TH DISTRICT 
















Bertie 


IK, 


! HI 


226 


62 


164 


f 


48 


Halifax 


387 


294 


681 


236 


445 


+ 


58 


Hertford 


81 


mi 


182 


77 


105 


f 


24 


Northampton 


114 


89 


203 


us 


85 


- 


29 


TOTAL 


698 


5<M 


1292 


493 


799 


+ 


101 


7TH DISTRICT 
















Edgecombe 


82 


258 


340 


234 


106 


+ 


24 


Nash 


210 


24 1 


451 


223 


228 


+ 


IX 


Wilson 


536 


298 


634 


276 


358 


+ 


22 


TOTAL 


628 


797 


1425 


733 


692 


+ 


64 



63 



SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
BEEORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 











Disposed 




Increase 




Pending 


Filed 


Total 


of 


Pending 




or 


8TH DISTRICT 


1 1 76 


1*>76 


Caseload 


1976 


12/31/76 


Decrease 


Greene 


55 


76 


1 Jl 


62 


69 


+ 


14 


Lenoir 


150 


278 


428 


236 


192 


+ 


42 


Wa\ne 


270 


1304 


1574 


1304 


270 






TOTAL 


475 


1658 


2133 


1602 


531 


+ 


56 


9TH DISTRICT 
















Franklin 


174 


198 


372 


269 


103 


- 


71 


Granville 


580 


767 


1347 


1260 


Kl 


- 


493 


Person 


166 


147 


313 


119 


194 


+ 


28 


Vance 


169 


I 59 


308 


238 


70 


- 


99 


Warren 


159 


85 


244 


48 


196 


+ 


37 


TOTAL 


1248 


1336 


2584 


1934 


650 


- 


598 


10TH DISTRICT 

















Wake 



482 



1250 



1732 



1148 



584 



+ 102 



11TH DISTRICT 



Harnett 


278 


Johnston 


374 


Lee 


168 


TOTAL 


820 


12TH DISTRICT 




Cumberland 


580 


Hoke 


78 


TOTAL 


658 


13TH DISTRICT 




Bladen 


104 


Brunswick 


165 


Columbus 


200 


TOTAL 


469 


NTH DISTRICT 





Durham 



529 



230 
570 
153 
953 



1171 

61 

1232 



I IX 
217 
148 
483 



839 



508 

944 

321 

1773 



1751 

139 

1890 



222 
382 
348 
952 



1368 



171 
591 
120 
882 



1266 

82 

1348 



103 

227 
122 
452 



786 



337 


+ 


59 


353 


- 


21 


201 


+ 


33 


891 


+ 


71 



485 


- 95 


S7 


- 21 


542 


- 116 



119 


+ 


is 


155 


- 


10 


226 


+ 


26 


500 


+ 


31 



582 



53 



1 5 Til I) IS IRK I 



Alamance 


192 


Chatham 


330 


Orange 


139 


TOTAL 


66] 


I6TH DISTRICT 




Robeson 


415 


Scotland 


89 


TOTAL 


504 



306 
Il8 
505 
929 



42 1 

89 

SKI 



498 

448 

644 

1 590 



836 

I 78 

I014 



267 
248 
451 
966 



428 

82 

5I0 



23 1 


+ 39 


200 


- 1 30 


193 


+ 54 


624 


- 37 



408 

96 

504 



64 



SPECIAL PROC EEDINGS PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
BEFORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 











Disposed 




Increase 




Pending 


Filed 


Total 


of 


Pending 




or 


17TH DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


1976 


Caseload 


1976 


12/31/76 


Decrease 


Caswell 


70 


72 


142 


71 


71 


+ 


1 


Rockingham 


414 


365 


779 


568 


41 1 


- 


3 


Stokes 


99 


117 


216 


164 


52 


- 


47 


Surry 


169 


175 


344 


205 


139 


- 


30 


TOTAL 


752 


729 


1481 


808 


673 


— 


79 


I8TH DISTRICT 
















Guilford 


804 


1753 


2557 


1773 


84 


- 


20 


19TH DISTRICT 
















Cabarrus 


183 


312 


495 


295 


200 


+ 


17 


Montgomery 


63 


100 


163 


89 


74 


+ 


1 1 


Randolph 


339 


262 


601 


316 


285 


- 


54 


Rowan 


60 


683 


743 


589 


154 


+ 


94 


TOTAL 


645 


1357 


2002 


1289 


713 


+ 


68 


20TH DISTRICT 
















Anson 


251 


97 


348 


II 1 


237 


- 


14 


Moore 


161 


245 


406 


259 


147 


- 


14 


Richmond 


250 


154 


404 


92 


312 


+ 


62 


Stanly 


210 


205 


415 


195 


220 


+ 


10 


Union 


147 


241 


388 


258 


130 


- 


17 , 


TOTAL 


1019 


942 


1961 


915 


1046 


+ 


27 


2/57" DISTRICT 

















Forsyth 



558 



Kill 



1569 



1282 



287 



271 



22 ND DISTRICT 



Alexander 


98 


Davidson 


231 


Davie 


70 


Iredell 


307 


TOTAL 


706 


2JRD DISTRICT 




Alleghany 


37 


Ashe 


37 


Wilkes 


222 


Yadkin 


83 


TOTAL 


379 


24TH DISTRICT 




Avery 


52 


Madison 


54 


Mitchell 


17 


Watauga 


38 


Yancey 


30 


TOTAL 


I'M 



64 
340 

86 
$48 
838 



55 

95 

408 

100 

658 



102 
74 
61 

133 
65 

435 



162 
571 
156 
655 
1544 



92 

132 

630 

183 

1037 



154 
128 

78 
171 

95 
626 



71 

364 

105 

542 

1082 



63 
97 

428 
91 

679 



91 
55 
33 
77 
63 
H9 



91 


7 


207 


- 24 


51 


- 19 


II i 


- 194 


462 


- 244 



29 


- 


s 


35 


- 


2 


202 


- 


20 


i »: 


+ 


9 


358 


- 


21 



63 


+ 1 1 


73 


+ 19 


45 


+ 28 


94 


+ 56 


52 


+ 2 


MI7 


+ 116 



65 



SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF 
BEFORE THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



25TH DISTRICT 



Cherokee 
C la) 
Graham 
Haywood 
Jackson 
Macon 
Swain 
TOTAL 



Pending 

1/1/76 



Filed 
1976 



Total 
Caseload 



Disposed 

of 

1976 



Pending 

12/31/76 



Increase 

or 
Decrease 



Burke 


922 


64 ! 


1565 


1331 


234 


- 688 


Caldwell 


562 


236 


598 


242 


156 


- 6 


Catawba 


248 


459 


707 


407 


300 


+ 52 


TOTAL 


1532 


1338 


2870 


1980 


890 


- 642 


26TH DISTRICT 














Mecklenburg 


1472 


1731 


3203 


2051 


1152 


- 320 


27TH DISTRICT 














Cleveland 


187 


561 


548 


((I 


217 


+ 30 


Gaston 


755 


•Ml 


1696 


888 


808 


+ 53 


Lincoln 


164 


211 


375 


312 


63 


- 101 


TOTAL 


1 106 


1513 


2619 


1531 


1088 


- 18 


28TH DISTRICT 














Buncombe 


472 


861 


1333 


813 


520 


+ 48 


29TH DISTRICT 














Henderson 


341 


311 


652 


261 


I'M 


+ 50 


McDowell 


213 


153 


366 


is: 


184 


- 29 


Polk 


54 


49 


83 


62 


21 


- 13 


Rutherford 


164 


176 


(4(1 


195 


145 


- 19 


I ransylvania 


202 


12 1 


325 


261 


64 


- 138 


TOTAL 


954 


812 


1766 


961 


805 


- 149 


30 TH DISTRICT 















50 


73 


123 


93 


30 


- 20 


22 


22 


14 


28 


16 


- 6 


8 


14 


22 


(4 


8 




173 


183 


556 


160 


196 


+ 23 


64 


113 


177 


64 


II ! 


+ 49 


121 


68 


IX') 


74 


115 


- 6 


56 


49 


105 


60 


15 


- 11 


-I'M 


^22 


1016 


493 


523 


+ 29 



(,R \\I) TOTAL 



21,547 



28,254 



49,801 



29.468 



20,333 



-1214 



66 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH HIGHEST RATIOS OF SPECIAL PROCEEDING 
DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Granville 

Burke 

Lincoln 

Wayne 

Iredell 

Forsyth 

Transylvania 

Rowan 

Vance 

Stokes 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 


Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


1347 


1260 


93.5 


1565 


1331 


85.1 


375 


312 


83.2 


1574 


1304 


82.8 


655 


542 


82.8 


1569 


1282 


81.7 


325 


261 


80.3 


743 


589 


79.3 


308 


238 


77.3 


216 


164 


75.9 


498 


295 


59.2 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH LOWEST RATIOS OF SPECIAL 
PROCEEDING DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Warren 

New Hanover 

Richmond 

Gates 

Bertie 

Pender 

Beaufort 

Anson 

Harnett 

Halifax 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 


Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


244 


48 


19.7 


1283 


273 


21.3 


404 


92 


22.8 


59 


13 


25.4 


226 


62 


27.4 


336 


92 


27.4 


489 


150 


30.7 


348 


111 


31.9 


508 


171 


33.7 


681 


236 


34.7 


498 


295 


59.2 



67 



AGES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS 
OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



! ST DISTRICT 

Camden 

Percentage of Total 
Chow an 

Percentage of Total 
Currituck 

Percentage of Total 
Dare 

Percentage of Total 
Gates 

Percentage of Total 
Pasquotank 

Percentage of Total 
Perquimans 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



Tola I 
Pending 


Less than 
VI Days 


Days 


SM-180 
Days 


INI Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To t> Years 


6 Years 
To 10 Years 


10 Years Greater 
To 20 Years Than 20 Y'ears 


r 


2 
11.8 


11.8 


3 
17.6 


4 
23.5 




J 

11.8 


4 
23.5 






72 


2 
2.8 


4 

5.6 


6 

S 1 


3 
4.2 


5 
6.9 


16 
22.2 


8 
1 1.1 


26 
36.1 


2 
2.8 


37 


1 

5.4 


4 
10.8 


6 
16.2 


8 
21.6 


8 
21.6 


4 
10.8 


2 
5.4 


3 
8.1 




67 


7 
10.4 


6 

'Ml 


8 
11.9 


12 
17.9 


19 

28.4 


10 
14.9 


2 
3.0 


3 

4 5 




44 


1 

2.3 




3 

(. s 


4 
9.1 


8 
18.2 


16 
36.4 


9 
20.5 


3 
6.8 




76 


3 
3.9 


5 
6.6 


9 
11.8 


12 
15.8 


7 
9 2 


12 
15.8 


6 

7.9 


22 
28.9 




34 


1 

2.9 


1 
2.9 


2 
5.9 


2 
5.9 


2 
5.9 


12 
35.3 


5 
14.7 


9 
26.5 




347 


IK 

5.2 


22 
6.3 


37 
10.7 


45 
13.0 


49 
14.1 


72 
20.7 


36 

10.4 


66 
19.0 


2 
(1.6 



2.VD DISTRICT 

Beaufort 

Percentage of Total 
H\de 

Percentage of Total 
Martin 

Percentage of Total 
Tyrrell 

Percentage of Total 
Washington 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



,39 

33 

113 

16 

67 

568 



6 


15 


1 1 


26 


20 


57 


43 


161 




I s 


4 4 


3.2 


7.7 


5.9 


16.8 


12.7 


47.5 




5 


5 


3 


5 


1 


6 


1 






5.2 


15.2 


9.1 


15.2 


3.0 


18.2 


J.O 






11 


10 


7 


14 


18 


30 


13 


10 




9.7 


8.8 
1 


6.2 

2 


12.4 
6 


15.9 
1 


26.5 
4 


11.5 


8.8 

2 






6.3 


12.5 


37.5 


6.3 


25.0 




12.5 




3 


5 


5 


7 


16 


19 


3 


3 


4 


4.5 


7.S 


7.5 


10.4 


23.9 


28.4 


4.5 


4.5 


6.0 


2S 


56 


28 


58 


56 


116 


60 


176 


4 


4.4 


6 J 


4.9 


10.2 


9.9 


20.4 


10.6 


31.0 


0.7 



7 
21.2 



2 
3.0 

9 
1.6 



3RD DISTRICT 

Carteret 

Percentage of Total 
Craven 

Percentage of Total 
Pamlico 

Percentage of Total 
Pitt 

Percentage 'it Total 
District lotals 

Percentage of I otal 



219 
187 
47 
I (1 

SX4 



9 


19 


31 


35 


40 


63 


8' 


12 


1 


1 


4 1 


S.7 


14.2 


16.0 


18.3 


28.8 


3.7 


5.5 


o s 


0.5 


17 


21 


31 


30 


34 


30 


13 


1 1 






9.1 


11.2 


16.6 


16.0 


18.2 


16.0 


7.0 


S 9 






2 




6 


9 


5 


8 


2 


5 


8 


2 


4 ! 




12.8 


19.1 


10.6 


17.0 


4.3 


10.6 


17.0 


4.3 


20 


21 


23 


13 


21 


21 


5 


7 






5.3 


16.0 


17.6 


9.9 


16.0 


16.0 


3.8 


5.3 






4X 


61 


91 


87 


100 


122 


28 


<5 


4 


3 


X.2 


10.4 


15.6 


14.9 


17.1 


20.9 


4.K 


6.0 


1.5 


0.5 



■} I II DISIRICT 



Duplin 

Percentage of Total 
Junes 

Percentage of Total 
Onslow 

Percentage of Total 
Sampson 

Percentage of Total 
District lotals 

Percentage of I otal 



419 


16 


12 


22 


30 


54 


110 


62 


113 






3.8 


2.9 


5.3 


7 2 


12.9 


26.3 


14.8 


27.0 




V) 


3 


8 


6 


4 


6 


8 


1 


4 






7.5 


20.0 


15.0 


10.0 


15.0 


20.0 


2.5 


10.0 




302 


'4 


27 


39 


39 


50 


48 


17 


II 


33 




7.9 


8.9 


12.9 


12.9 


16.6 


15.9 


S (, 


3.6 


10.9 


'.I. 1 


6 


16 


15 


25 


31 


115 


63 


41 






1.9 


5.1 


4.8 


8.0 


9.9 


36.9 


20.2 


13.1 




073 


49 


63 


82 


98 


141 


281 


143 


169 


33 




4.6 


5.9 


7.6 


9.1 


13.1 


26.2 


13.3 


15.8 


3.1 



14 
4.6 



14 
1.3 



68 



AGES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS 
OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



5TH DISTRICT 

New Hanover 

Percentage of Total 
Pender 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



total 
Pending 

1010 

244 

1254 



Less than 
30 Days 

32 

3.2 

6 

2.5 

38 
5.0 



30-90 

Days 

55 

5.4 

12 

4.9 

67 
5.3 



91-180 
Days 

86 

x 5 

9 
3.7 
95 
7.6 



181 Days I Near 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

To I Y'ear To 2 Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



159 
15.7 
17 
7.0 
176 
14.0 



186 
18.4 
II 
4.5 
197 
15.7 



293 

29.0 

43 

17.6 

336 
26.8 



95 
9.4 

46 
18.9 
141 
11.2 



7S 
7.4 

47 
19.3 
122 
9.7 



21 
2.1 

23 
9.4 

44 
3.5 



8 

0.8 

30 

12.3 

38 

3.0 



6TH DISTRICT 

Bertie 

Percentage of Total 
Halifax 

Percentage of Total 
Hertford 

Percentage of Total 
Northampton 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



164 


7 


13 


11 


18 


36 


31 


14 


22 


7 


5 




4.3 


7') 


6.7 


11.0 


22.0 


18.9 


8.5 


13.4 


4.3 


s.o 


445 


13 


IN 


18 


2S 


34 


117 


69 


129 


16 


6 




2.9 


40 


4.0 


5.6 


7.6 


26.3 


15.5 


29.0 


3.6 


1.3 


105 


4 


8 


9 


14 


12 


28 


9 


21 








3.8 


7.6 


8.6 


13.3 


11.4 


26.7 


8.6 


20.0 






85 


4 


s 


11 


4 


X 


37 


5 


8 








4 7 


9.4 


12.9 


4.7 


9.4 


43.5 


5.9 


>>4 






799 


28 


47 


49 


hi 


90 


213 


97 


180 


23 


il l 




3 5 


5 .9 


6.1 


7.6 


11.3 


26.7 


12.1 


22.5 


2.9 


! 4 



777/ DISTRICT 

Edgecombe 

Percentage of Total 
Nash 

Percentage of Total 
Wilson 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



106 


7 


23 


15 


21 


8 


15 


9 


4 


4 




6.6 


21.7 


14.2 


19.8 


7.5 


14.2 


x 5 


3.8 


5.8 


228 


14 


20 


29 


20 


27 


35 


27 


55 


1 




6.1 


X X 


12.7 


X X 


11.8 


15.4 


11.8 


24.1 


4 


358 


15 


21 


28 


28 


25 


110 


44 


80 


7 




4 2 


s 9 


7.8 


7.8 


7 


30.7 


12.3 


22.3 


2.0 


692 


56 


64 


72 


69 


60 


160 


80 


139 


1?. 




5.2 


4.2 


10.4 * 


10.0 


8.7 


23.1 


11.6 


20.1 


1.7 



HTH DISTRICT 

Greene 

Percentage of Total 
Lenoir 

Percentage of Total 
Wayne 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



69 


3 


4 


8 


8 


14 


19 


8 


5 








4 3 


5.8 


11.6 


11.6 


20.3 


27.5 


11.6 


7 ? 






192 


12 


16 


28 


37 


27 


49 


5 


10 


7 


1 




6.3 


8.3 


14.6 


19.3 


14.1 


25.5 


2.6 


5.2 


3.6 


0.5 


270 


24 


43 


34 


28 


35 


52 


31 


17 


5 


1 




8.9 


15.9 


12.6 


10.4 


13.0 


19.3 


11.5 


6.3 


1.9 


0.4 


531 


39 


63 


70 


73 


76 


120 


44 


32 


12 


2 




7.3 


11.9 


13.2 


13.7 


14.3 


22.6 


8.3 


6.0 


2.3 


«4 



9TH DISTRICT 

Franklin 

Percentage of Total 
Granville 

Percentage of Total 
Person. 

Percentage of Total 
Vance 

Percentage of Total 
Warren 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



103 


6 


10 


14 


21 


12 


16 


15 


9 








5.8 


9.7 


13.6 


20.4 


11.7 


15.5 


14.6 


8.7 






87 


10 


11 


8 


15 


1 1 


19 


5 


7 


1 






11.5 


12.6 


9.2 


17.2 


12.6 


21.8 


5.7 


8.0 


1 1 




194 


3 


17 


14 


17 


27 


48 


32 


.36 








1.5 


8.8 


7.2 


8.8 


13.9 


24.7 


16.5 


18.6 






70 


5 


10 


6 


17 


12 


8 


9 


3 








7.1 


14.3 


8.6 


24.3 


17.1 


11.4 


12.9 


4.3 






196 


4 


10 


12 


23 


36 


42 


20 


25 


0) 


5 




2.0 


5.1 


6.1 


11.7 


18.4 


21.4 


10.2 


12.8 


9.7 


2.6 


650 


2X 


^s 


54 


93 


98 


133 


HI 


80 


20 


s 




4.3 


8.9 


8.3 


14.3 


15.1 


20.5 


12.5 


12.3 


3.1 


0.8 



69 



ACES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS 
OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



IOTH DISTRICT 

Wake 

Percentage of Total 
District rotate 

Percentage of Total 



Total 

Pending 


Less than 
JO Days 


M-90 
Pays 


MI-180 

Days 


181 Days 
To 1 Vear 


1 Year 

To 2 Years 


2 V ears 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To 6 Y ears 


6 Years 
To 10 Years 


10 Years Greater 
To 20 Years Than 20 Years 


584 


^S 


106 


90 


105 


85 


57 


35 


37 


n 




9.9 


18.2 


15.4 


18.0 


14.6 


9.8 


6.0 


6 5 


1.9 


584 


58 


106 


90 


105 


85 


57 


35 


37 


11 




9.9 


18.2 


15.4 


18.0 


14.6 


9.8 


6.0 


6.3 


1.9 



NTH DISTRICT 



Harnett 


337 


in 


21 


27 


12 


41 


89 


48 


45 


22 


Percentage of Total 




3.0 


6.2 


8.0 


9 5 


12.8 


26.4 


14.2 


13.4 


6.5 


Johnston 


353 


17 


44 


48 


152 


64 


16 


4 


8 




Percentage of Total 




4.8 


12.5 


13.6 


43.1 


18.1 


4 5 


1 1 


2.3 




1 et 


201 


6 


14 


24 


26 


31 


35 


36 


29 




Percentage of Total 




3.0 


7.0 


11.9 


12.9 


15.4 


17.4 


17.9 


14.4 




District Totals 


891 


33 


79 


99 


210 


138 


140 


88 


N2 


22 


Percentage of Total 




3.7 


8.9 


11.1 


23.6 


15.5 


15.7 


9.9 


9.2 


2.5 


I2TH DISTRICT 






















Cumberland 


485 


4S 


1 14 


92 


86 


84 


ss 


4 


2 




Percentage of Total 




9.9 


23.5 


19.0 


17.7 


17.3 


11.3 


0.8 


04 




Hoke 


57 


1 


7 


2 


3 


II 


17 


8 


8 




Percentage of Total 




1.8 


12.3 


3.5 


5.3 


19.3 


29.8 


14.0 


14.0 




District Totals 


542 


49 


121 


94 


89 


95 


72 


12 


10 




Percentage of Total 




9.0 


22.3 


17J 


16.4 


17.5 


13.3 


2.2 


1.8 




13TH DISTRICT 






















Bladen 


119 


s 


12 


13 


13 


22 


27 


14 


13 




Percentage of Total 




4 2 


10.1 


10.9 


10.9 


18.5 


22.7 


11.8 


10.9 




Brunswick 


155 


I I 


29 


16 


15 


27 


29 


18 


7 


3 


Percentage of Total 




7.1 


18.7 


10.3 


9.7 


17.4 


18.7 


11.6 


4.5 


1.9 


Columbus 


226 


9 


14 


20 


28 


45 


45 


30 


35 




Percentage of Total 




1 ii 


6.2 


8 8 


12.4 


19.9 


19.9 


13.3 


15.5 




District Totals 


500 


2S 


ss 


49 


56 


94 


101 


62 


55 


3 


Percentage of Total 




5.0 


11.0 


9.8 


11.2 


18.8 


20.2 


12:4 


11.0 


0.6 


NTH DISTRICT 






















Durham 


582 


10 


55 


7 I 


73 


122 


176 


28 


65 


2 


Percentage of Total 




1.7 


6.0 


12.2 


12.5 


21.0 


30.2 


4K 


11.2 


0.3 


District Totals 


582 


10 


J5 


71 


73 


122 


176 


28 


65 


2 


Percentage of Total 




1.7 


6.0 


12.2 


12.5 


21.0 


30.2 


4.8 


11.2 


0.3 


1 5 TH DISTRICT 






















Alamance 


231 


18 


33 


53 


36 


52 


31 


5 


3 




Percentage of Total 




7.8 


14.3 


22.9 


15.6 


22.5 


13.4 


2.2 


1.3 




Chatham 


200 


11 


7 


5 


24 


15 


50 


27 


61 




Percentage of Total 




5.5 


3.5 


2.5 


12.0 


7 S 


25.0 


13.5 


30.5 




Orange 


193 


15 


28 


15 


33 


45 


22 


17 


18 




Percentage of Total 




7.8 


14.5 


7.8 


17.1 


23.3 


11.4 


8 x 


9.3 




District Totals 


624 


44 


68 


73 


93 


112 


103 


49 


82 




Percentage of Total 




7.1 


10.9 


11.7 


14.9 


17.9 


16.5 


7.9 


13.1 





70 



AGES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS 
OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 





Total 


Less than 


30-90 


91-180 


181 Days 


1 Year 


2 Years 


4 Years 


6 Years 


10 Years 


Creater 


16TH DISTRICT 


Pending 


30 Days 


Days 


Days 


To 1 Year 


To 2 Years 


To 4 Years 


To 6 Years 


To 10 Years 


To 20 Years 


Than 20 Years 


Robeson 


408 


21 


23 


34 


53 


78 


94 


54 


50 


1 




Percentage of Total 




5.1 


5 6 


8.3 


13.0 


19.1 


23.0 


13.2 


12.3 


0.2 




Scotland 


96 


6 


4 


12 


14 


9 


13 


16 


13 


6 


3 


Percentage of Total 




6.3 


4 7 


12.5 


14.6 


9.4 


13.5 


16.7 


13.5 


6.3 


3.1 


District Totals 


504 


27 


11 


46 


67 


87 


107 


70 


63 


7 


3 


Percentage of Total 




5.4 


5.4 


9.1 


13.3 


17.3 


21.2 


13.9 


12.5 


1.4 


0.6 


1 7TH DISTRICT 
























Caswell 


71 


2 


8 


8 


7 


14 


17 


8 


7 






Percentage of Total 




2.8 


11.3 


11.3 


9.9 


19.7 


23.9 


11.3 


9.9 






Rockingham 


411 


13 


74 


46 


51 


68 


99 


43 


67 






Percentage of Total 




3.2 


5.8 


11.2 


12.4 


16.5 


24.1 


10.5 


16.3 






Stokes 


52 


5 


11 


11 


15 


5 


2 


2 


1 






Percentage of Total 




9.6 


21.2 


21.2 


28.8 


9.6 


3.8 


! x 


1.9 






Surry 


139 


12 


18 


18 


12 


24 


26 


7 


11 


7 


4 


Percentage of Total 




8.6 


12.9 


12.9 


8.6 


17.3 


18.7 


5.0 


7 9 


so 


2.9 


District Totals 


673 


32 


ft I 


83 


85 


111 


144 


<Mt 


86 


7 


4 


Percentage of Total 




4.8 


9.1 


12.3 


12.6 


16.5 


21.4 


n 7> 


12.8 


il. « 


tt.to 


18TH DISTRICT 
























Guilford 


7X1 


34 


114 


118 


93 


144 


105 


83 


90 






Percentage of Total 




4.4 


14.6 


15.1 


11.9 


18.4 


13.4 


10.6 


11.5 






High Point 


3 




3 


















Percentage of Total 






100.0 


















District Totals 


784 


(4 


117 


118 


93 


144 


105 


83 


90 






Percentage of Total 




4..* 


14.9 


15.1 


11.9 


18.4 


13.4 


10.6 


11.5 






19TH DISTRICT 
























Cabarrus 


200 


13 


29 


26 


22 


44 


51 


5 


X 


2 




Percentage of Total 




6.5 


14.5 


13.0 


11.0 


22.0 


25.5 


2.5 


4.0 


1 () 




Montgomery 


74 


3 


14 


9 


15 


20 


11 


2 








Percentage of Total 




4 1 


18.9 


12.2 


20.3 


27.0 


14.9 


7 7 








Randolph 


285 


23 


13 


25 


36 


47 


65 


18 


39 


IX 


1 


Percentage of Total 




8.1 


4 6 


8.8 


12.6 


16.5 


22.8 


6.3 


13.7 


6.3 


0.4 


Rowan 


154 


28 


43 


in 


31 


26 


16 










Percentage of Total 




18.2 


27.9 


6.5 


20.1 


16.9 


10.4 










District Totals 


713 


fc7 


99 


7(1 


104 


137 


143 


25 


47 


20 


1 


Percentage of Total 




9.4 


13.9 


9.8 


14.6 


19.2 


20.1 


3.5 


6.6 


2 8 


0.1 


20TH DISTRICT 
























Anson 


237 


3 


4 


6 


8 


14 


36 


48 


118 






Percentage of Total 




1.3 


1.7 


2.5 


3.4 


5.9 


15.2 


20.3 


49.8 






Moore 


147 


5 


19 


28 


25 


18 


39 


7 


6 






Percentage of Total 




3.4 


12.9 


19.0 


17.0 


12.2 


26.5 


4 X 


4.1 






Richmond 


312 


6 


18 


28 


32 


61 


57 


34 


68 


8 




Percentage of Total 




I7> 


5.8 


9.0 


10.3 


19.6 


18.3 


10.9 


21.8 


2.6 




Stanly 


220 


11 


23 


10 


28 


20 


51 


10 


31 


22 


14 


Percentage of Total 




5.0 


10.5 


4.5 


12.7 


9 i 


23.2 


4.5 


14.1 


10.0 


6.4 


Union 


130 


12 


28 


22 


17 


12 


29 


7 


3 






Percentage of Total 




9.2 


21.5 


16.9 


13.1 


9.2 


22.3 


5.4 


2 S 






District Totals 


1046 


37 


92 


94 


110 


125 


212 


106 


226 


30 


14 


Percentage of Total 




3.5 


8.8 


9.0 


10.5 


12.0 


20.3 


10.1 


21.6 


2.9 


1.3 



71 



AGES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS 
OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



2 1ST DISTRICT 

Forsyth 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



lulal 
Pending 

287 
287 



I ess than 
WDays 

33 
11.5 

33 
11.5 



30-90 
Days 

46 
16.0 

46 
16.0 



91-180 
Days 

51 
17.8 

51 
17.8 



81 Days 1 Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

Year To 2 Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



I.. 



67 
23.3 

67 
23 J 



50 
17.4 

50 
17.4 



29 
10.1 

29 
10.1 



9 
3.1 

9 
3.1 



2 
0.7 

2 
0.7 



22 \D DISTRICT 

Alexander 

Percentage of Total 
Das idson 

Percentage of Total 
Davie 

Percentage of Total 
Iredell 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



207 

51 

I I 3 

462 



1 


8 


13 


17 


21 


17 


5 


2 2 


s s 


14.3 


18.7 


23.1 


18.7 


5.5 


21 


30 


32 


29 


29 


40 


9 


0.1 


14.5 


15.5 


14.0 


14.0 


19.3 


4.3 


2 


8 


7 


6 


8 


12 


7 


3.9 


15.7 


13.7 


11.8 


15.7 


23.5 


13.7 


16 


21 


16 


27 


15 


11 


4 


4.2 


18.6 


14.2 


23.9 


13.3 


9.7 


3.5 


41 


67 


68 


79 


73 


80 


25 


8.9 


14.5 


14.7 


17.1 


15.8 


17.3 


5.4 



17 
8 2 
1 
2.0 
3 
2.7 
29 
6.3 



23 RD DISTRICT 

Alleghany 

Percentage of Total 
Ashe 

Percentage of Total 
Wilkes 

Percentage of Total 
Yadkin 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



29 
35 

202 
92 

358 



3 


6 


4 


8 


2 


4 




0.3 


20.7 


13.8 


27.6 


6.9 


13.8 




1 


4 


5 


9 


1 


12 


3 


2.9 


11.4 


14.3 


25.7 


2.9 


34.3 


8.6 


20 


22 


20 


28 


44 


37 


14 


9.9 


10.9 


9.9 


13.9 


21.8 


18.3 


6.9 


2 


9 


19 


20 


24 


12 


3 


2.2 


9 8 


20.7 


21.7 


26.1 


13.0 


3.3 


26 


41 


48 


65 


71 


65 


20 


7.3 


11.5 


13.4 


18.2 


19.8 


18.2 


5.6 



13 

6 4 

3 

I 3 

16 

4.5 



2 
6.9 



4 
2.0 



4 
1.1 



2 
0.6 



24 TH DISTRICT 

A v e r> 

Percentage of Total 
Madison 

Percentage of Total 
Mitchell 

Percentage of Total 
Watauga 

Percentage of Total 
Yancey 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



63 


10 
15.9 


7 
III 


4 
6 ! 


16 

25.4 


15 
23.8 


8 
12.7 


73 


7 
9.6 


11 
15.1 


8 
11.0 


7 
9.6 


12 
16.4 


24 
32.9 


45 


8 
17.8 


7 
15.6 


3 
6.7 


7 
15.6 


11 

24.4 


9 
20.0 


94 


7 
7.4 


14 
14.9 


10 
10.6 


21 
22.3 


27 
28.7 


14 
14.9 


32 


2 
6.3 


5 
15.6 


4 
12.5 


6 
18.8 


3 
9.4 


11 
34.4 


117 


34 

III 


44 

14.3 


29 
9.4 


57 
18.6 


68 
22.1 


66 
21.5 



3 
4.8 

2 
2.7 



5 
1.6 



2 

2.7 



1 
I I 

1 
I I 

4 
1.3 



25TH DISTRICT 

Burke 

Percentage of Total 
Caldwell 

Percentage of Total 
' .'. ba 

Percentage of Total 
District lotals 

Percentage of Iota I 



234 


26 


27 


22 


24 


34 


34 


18 


48 


1 




1 II 


11.5 


9.4 


10.3 


14.5 


14.5 


7.7 


20.5 


0.4 


1 6 


24 


22 


28 


45 


37 


60 


32 


I0X 






6.7 


6.2 


7.9 


12.6 


10.4 


16.9 


9.0 


30.3 




300 


26 


26 


44 


42 


42 


75 


21 


23 


1 




8.7 


8.7 


14.7 


14.0 


14.0 


25.0 


7.0 


7.7 


0.3 


890 


76 


75 


94 


111 


113 


169 


71 


179 


2 




8.5 


K4 


10.6 


12.5 


12.7 


19.0 


8.0 


20.1 


(1.2 



72 



AGES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE CLERKS 
OF SUPERIOR COURT, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



26TH MSTRK 7 

Mecklenburg 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



Total 
Pending 

1152 
1152 



Less than 
30 Days 

76 
6.6 

76 
6 6 



30-90 
Days 

165 
14.3 

165 
14.3 



91-180 
Days 

127 
11.0 

127 
11.0 



181 Days I Year 2 Years 4 Years 6 Years 10 Years Greater 

To 1 Year To 2 Years To 4 Years To 6 Years To 10 Years To 20 Years Than 20 Years 



176 
15.3 

176 
15J 



189 
16.4 

189 
16.4 



124 
10.8 

124 
10.8 



57 
4.9 

57 
4.9 



94 

8.2 
94 

8.2 



117 
10.2 

117 
10.2 



27 
2.3 

27 
2.3 



27TH DISTRICT 

Cleveland 

Percentage of Total 
Gaston 

Percentage of Total 
Lincoln 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



217 


13 


30 


39 


55 


45 


28 


4 


5 








6.0 


13.8 


18.0 


25.3 


20.7 


12.9 


1 8 


1.4 






808 


S4 


^2 


59 


77 


128 


195 


sx 


66 


74 


4S 




67 


(, 4 


7 1 


9 5 


15.8 


24.1 


7.2 


x 2 


9.2 


5.6 


63 


2 


14 


16 


7 


10 


13 


1 










3.2 


22.2 


25.4 


11.1 


15.9 


20.6 


1.6 








1088 


69 


% 


114 


139 


183 


236 


63 


69 


74 


45 




6 J 


8.8 


10.5 


12.8 


16.8 


21.7 


5.8 


6.3 


6.8 


4.1 



28 TH DISTRICT 

Buncombe 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



520 


2^ 


61 


^ 84 


95 


131 


114 


6 




5.6 


11.7 - 


H.1l6.2 


18.3 


25.2 


21.9 


1.2 


520 


29 


61 


84 


95 


131 


114 


6 




5.6 


11.7 


16.2 


18.3 


25.2 


21.9 


1.2 



29TH DISTRICT 

Henderson 

Percentage of Total 
McDowell 

Percentage of Total 
Polk 

Percentage of Total 
Rutherford 

Percentage of Total 
Transylvania 

Percentage of Total 
District Totafc 

Percentage ef Total 



391 


14 


IK 


56 


47 


46 


97 


97 


36 




3.6 


4 6 


9.2 


12.0 


11.8 


24.8 


24.8 


9.2 


1X4 


8 


14 


16 


51 


25 


60 


23 


7 




4.3 


76 


X7 


16.8 


13.6 


32.6 


12.5 


vx 


21 


1 


1 


1 


7 


1 


4 


2 


2 




4X 


4K 


4.8 


33.3 


4X 


19.0 


9 5 


9.5 


14S 


II 


10 


19 


25 


31 


33 


x 


8 




7 6 


6.9 


13.1 


17.2 


21.4 


22.8 


5.5 


5.5 


(-4 




12 


3 


8 


9 


27 


3 


2 






18.8 


4.7 


12.5 


14.1 


42.2 


4 7 


3.1 




34 


55 


75 


118 


112 


22-1 


133 


55 




4.2 


6.8 


9 J 


♦4.7 


13.9 


27.5 


U.5 


*»M 



2 
9.5 



2 
i.2 



30TH DISTRICT 

Cherokee 

Percentage of Total 
Clay 

Percentage of Total 
Graham 

Percentage of Total 
Haywood 

Percentage of Total 
Jackson 

Percentage of Total 
Macon 

Percentage of Total 
Swain 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 

STATE TOTALS 
Percentage of Total 



50 


5 
16.7 


5 
16.7 


5 
16.7 


5 
16.7 


3 
10.0 


4 
1 3.3 


2 
6 7 


1 

3.3 






16 


1 

6 5 


1 
6.3 




5 
31.3 


1 

6 l 


8 
50.0 










8 




1 

12.5 




3 
37.5 


1 
12.5 


3 
37.5 










196 


6 
3.1 


16 
8.2 


22 
11.2 


40 
20.4 


46 
23.5 


38 
19.4 


6 

3.1 


22 
11.2 






113 


x 
7.1 


11 
9 7 


12 
10.6 


25 
22.1 


23 
20.4 


20 

17.7 


9 
8.0 


5 
44 






115 




4 

1 5 


12 
10.4 


18 
15.7 


14 
12.2 


27 
23.5 


26 

22.6 


14 
12.2 






4S 


2 
44 


5 
11.1 


2 
4.4 


3 

6 7 


14 
31.1 


11 
24.4 


3 

(-7 


3 
6.7 


2 
4 4 




523 


22 
4.2 


43 

8.2 


53 
10.1 


99 
18.9 


102 
19.5 


HI 
21.2 


46 
8.8 


45 
8.6 


2 
0.4 




333 


1165 

5.7 


2034 
10.0 


2208 
10.9 


2851 
14.0 


3209 
15.8 


4128 
20.3 


1763 

8.7 


2335 
11.5 


460 

2.3 


180 



73 



Stye Statrict Court iiuiBion 



"(Elje (General Assembly Bljall. from time to time, biuibe tije 
£>tate into a conuenient number of local court bistrtcta anb aljall 
prescribe ulcere tb,c liatrict (Eourto fib,all Bit. but a lifitrict 
(Hourt must Bit in at least one place in each, countg." 

N. (E. OIonBt., Art. 3B, £ec. 10 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 

Total case activity in the district courts during 1976, compared with total case activity during the 
preceding four years, is depicted in the graphs which follow. There was a decrease in total filings - 
1,270,000 in 1976 as compared with 1,340,556 in 1975. There was also a decrease in the total number of 
dispositions, — 1,249,609 in 1976 as compared with 1,322,359 in 1975. The number of cases pending 
at the end of 1976 was 177,759 as compared with 157,368 at the end of 1975, an increase of 12.96%. 

District courts have jurisdiction of proceedings involving juveniles (individuals under 16 years of 
age). Such proceedings, although often involving allegations of activity of a criminal nature, are not 
legally regarded or treated as criminal cases. Data on juvenile proceedings is presented in a separate 
section, following the data on District Court Civil Dockets. 



75 



TOTAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976) 

NO OK CASES 



.500.000 



1.400.000 



1.300,000 



1. 200.000 



,100.000 



1 .000.000 



^(MHIIKI 



800.000 



700,000 



600,000 



500,000 



400,000 



300.000 



200.000 



100.000 



1,293.336 



1,256,510 



1.199,900 



U 49,632 1,150,679 



1,184,652 



1972 



1973 



1974 
(YEAR) 



I 1.322,359 



1,270,000 



1.249,609 



1975 



1976 



ADDI I) 



DISPOSED OF: 



76 



TOTAL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976) 



NO. OF CASFS 



200,000 



180,000 



160,000 



140,000 



120,000 



100,000 



179,473 



177,759 




77 



The tables which follow present data on total days of district court for the past five years, and 
data on the days of court held at each district court seat during 1976. The total number of days of dis- 
trict court in 1976 was 18,593, compared with 18,653 in 1975. 

TOTAL DAYS OF DISTRICT COURT 

1972-1976 

Year Civil Criminal Total 

1972 5,404 Vi 10,852 '/a 16,257 

1973 5,728 Vi 10,893 Vi 16,622 

1974 6,018 '/2 11,193 17,21 Wi 

1975 6,673 Vi 1 1,979 Vi 18,653 

1976 6,670 3 /4 1 1,922 "A 18,593 



7X 



DAYS OF COURT HELD AT EACH SEAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT* 

1976 Calendar Year 



/S7- DISTRICT (2 Judges) 



CIVIL CRIMINAL TOTAL 



8TH DISTRICT (5 Judges) aV |L CRIMINAL TOTAL 



Camden —Camden 


1 


19 


20 


Chowan — Edenton 


35 


47 


82 


Currituck — Currituck 


616 


24 


30 Vi 


Dare — Manteo 


8 


42 Vi 


50 Vi 


Gates — Gatesville 


2 


22 


24 


Pasquotank — Elizabeth City 


46 


56 


102 


Perquimans — Hertford 


16 


22 


221/2 


TOTAL 


99 


232 Vi 


331 Vi 


2ND DISTRICT (2 Judges) 








Beaufort — Washington 


22 


112 Vi 


134'/i 


Hyde — Swan Quarter 





16'/2 


16Vi 


Martin — Williamston 


18 


50 


68 


Tyrrell — Columbia 


316 


11 


14Vi 


Washington — Plymouth 


4 


35 Vi 


3916 


TOTAL 


47 Vi 


225 '/2 


273 


3RD DISTRICT (5 Judges) 








Carteret — Beaufort 


5616 


125Vi 


182 


Craven — New Bern 


118 


165 Vi 


283 '/2 


Pamlico — Bayboro 


7 


21 


28 


Pitt — Greenville 


87 


18816 


275 16 


Farmville 





21 Vi 


21 Vi 


Ayden 


2 


2216 


24 Vi 


TOTAL 


270 Vi 


544 Vi 


815 


4TH DISTRICT (4 Judges) 








Duplin Kenansville 


22 


70 


92 


Jones — Trenton 


5% 


15'/4 


21 


Onslow — Jackonsville 


55 


344 


399 


Sampson — Clinton 


32 


78 Vi 


11016 


TOTAL 


114% 


507% 


622 Vi 


5TH DISTRICT (3 Judges) 








New Hanover — Wilmington 


159 Vi 


241 


400 Vi 


Pender — Burgaw 


17 


51 


68 


TOTAL 


176% 


292 


468 Vi 


6 TH DISTRICT (3 Judges) 








Bertie — Windsor 


2 


92 


94 


Halifax — Halifax 


18 


83 


101 


Roanoke Rapids 


4Vi 


45 


49 16 


Hertford — Winton 


11 


64 Vi 


7516 


Northampton — Jackson 


5Vi 


51 Vi 


57 


TOTAL 


41 


336 


377 


7TH DISTRICT (4 Judges) 









Edgecombe — Tarboro 

Rocky Mount 
Nash — Nashville 
Wilson — Wilson 
TOTAL 



33 
1016 
45 Vi 
29 
118 



80 
63 
6316 
99 Vi 
306 



113 
73 Vi 
109 
12816 
424 



Greene — Snow Hill 


13 


32 


4S 


Lenoir — Kinston 


88 Vi 


14716 


236 


Wayne — Goldsboro 


17616 


159 


335 Vi 


Mount Olive 





25 


25 


TOTAL 


278 


363 Vi 


641 Vi 


977/ DISTRICT (4 Judges) 








Franklin — Louisburg 


19 


47 


66 


Granville — Oxford 


63 


52 Vi 


11516 


Person Roxboro 


22 Vi 


50 


72 Vi 


Vance — Henderson 


56 Vi 


89 


145 Vi 


Warren — Warrenton 


6 


26 


32 


TOTAL 


167 


264 Vi 


431 Vi 


10TH DISTRICT (6 Judges) 








Wake — Raleigh 


384 16 


629 Vi 


1014 


Fuquay-Varina 





15Vi 


15 Vi 


Wendell 





14 Vi 


1416 


TOTAL 


384 Vi 


659 Vi 


1044 


I1TH DISTRICT (4 Judges) 








Harnett — Lillington 


22 


92 


114 


Dunn 





3516 


3516 


Johnston — Smithfield 


90 


92 


182 


Benson 





3216 


32 Vi 


Selma 





46 Vi 


46 Vi 


Lee — Sanford 


22 Vi 


102 Vi 


125 


TOTAL 


13416 


401 


535 Vi 


I2TH DISTRICT (5 Judges) 








Cumberland — Fayetteville 


405 16 


424 


829 Vi 


Hoke — Raeford 


4 


42 


46 


TOTAL 


409 Vi 


466 


875 Vi 


I3TH DISTRICT (3 Judges) 








Bladen — Elizabethtown 


29 Vi 


80 Vi 


110 


Brunswick — Southport 


51 


6316 


11416 


Shallotte 





36 


36 


Columbus — Whiteville 


90 


110 


200 


Tabor City 





24 Vi 


2416 


TOTAL 


170 Vi 


314V2 


485 


NTH DISTRICT (3 Judges) 








Durham — Durham 


208 Vi 


252 


460 Vi 


I5TH DISTRICT (4 Judges) 









Alamance — Graham 194 Vi 194 388 Vi 

Chatham Pittsboro 16 2916 45 16 

SilerCity 7Vi 29 36 Vi 

Orange Hillsborough 5816 58 116 16 

Chapel Hill 14 7016 84 Vi 

TOTAL 290 Vi 381 671 Vi 

All days of court at each seat were not necessarily held by a judge assigned to the designated judicial district. In 1976 District Court 
Judges held a total of 281 days of court in judicial districts other than their own. A day of court is defined as at least a two hour session 
before lunch and at least a two hour session after lunch. Judicial hospitalization, juvenile and domestic relations cases are counted as 
civil court. 

79 



DANS OF COURT HELD AT EACH SEAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT* 

1976 Calendar Year 



16TH DISTRICTS Judges i 



Robeson — Lumberton 


ih 


216': 


331 Vi 


Fairmont 





27 V: 


27 Vi 


Max ton 





40 


40 


Red Springs 





30 


30 


Rowland 





21 


21 


Saint Pauls 





25 Vi 


25 Vi 


Scotland Laurinburg 


64 V4 


90 


1 54 Vi 


TOTAL 


179 Vi 


4511': 


630 


I'TH DISTR IC T 1 4 Judges J 








Caswell - Yanceyville 


7 


36 


43 


Rockingham — Wentworth 


57 


6'/2 


63 Vi 


Reidsville 





84 


84 


Eden 





70 '/2 


70 Vi 


Madison 





43 


43 


Stokes Danbury 


8'/2 


68 


76 Vi 


Surr\ Dobson 


32 


118 


150 


TOTAL 


104'/ 2 


426 


530 Vi 


I8TH DISTRICT (8 Judges) 








Guilford Greensboro 


374 Vi 


394 


768 Vi 


High Point 


108 


149 Vi 


257 Vi 


TOTAL 


482 Vi 


543 Vi 


1026 


19TH DISTRICT (5 Judges) 








Cabarrus — Concord 


68 


98 


166 


Kannapolis 





50 


50 


Montgomery — Troy 


31 Vi 


61 


92 Vi 


Randolph — Asheboro 


67 Vi 


87 


154Vi 


1 ihern 





5'/2 


5'/2 


Rowan — Salisbury 


78 


133 


211 


TOTAL 


245 


434 Vi 


679 Vi 


20 TH DISTRICT {4 Judges} 








Anson — Wadesboro 


22'/2 


72 


94 Vi 


Moore — Carthaf* 


27'/2 


49 


76 Vi 


Southern Pines 





17 


17 


Richmond - Rockingham 


33 


71 


104 


Stanly — Albemarle 


31 


109 


140 


Union — Monroe 


32 Vi 


101 Vi 


134 


TOTAL 


14*', 


419 Vi 


M6 


21 ST DISTRICT '/ '5 Judges) 








Forsyth — Winston-Salem 


269 Vi 


464 


733 Vi 


Kernersville 





17 


17 


TOTAL 


269 Vi 


4X1 


750 Vi 


22 ND DISTRICT (4 Judges) 









Alexander — Taylorsville 
Davidson Lexington 

Thomasville 
I ) Mocksville 

Iredell Statesville 
Mooresville 
TOTAL 



23 RD DISTRICT f 2 Judges ) 



Alleghany Sparta 


l3'/2 


20 Vi 


34 


Ashe — Jefferson 


8 


44 


52 


Wilkes Wilkesboro 


1 1 3 Vi 


97 Vi 


211 


Yadkin Yadkinville 


I3'/2 


42 Vi 


56 


TOTAL 


148V2 


204 Vi 


353 


24TH DISTRICT(2 Judges) 








Avery — Newland 


29 Vi 


31 


60 Vi 


Madison - Marshall 


25 Vi 


15 


40 Vi 


Mitchell — Bakersville 


32 Vi 


28 


60 Vi 


Watauga Boone 


24 


71 


95 


Yancey Burnsville 


21 Vi 


21 Vi 


43 


TOTAL 


133 


166 Vi 


299 Vi 


25TH DISTRICT (5 Judges) 








Burke - Morganton 


10 


152 


162 


Caldwell — Lenoir 


59 Vi 


1 32 Vi 


\^>2 


Catawba Newton 


52 Vi 


88 Vi 


141 


Hickory 


68 


111 


179 


TOTAL 


190 


484 


674 


26 TH DISTRICT (8 Judges) 









Mecklenburg - Charlotte 



27TH DISTRICT (5 Judges) 



745 Vi 



Buncombe Asheville 



29TH DISTRICT (3 Judges) 



321 



759 



462 



1504'/2 



Cleveland - Shelby 


101 Vi 


134 


235 Vi 


Gaston — Gastonia 


186 Vi 


446 


632 Vi 


Lincoln — Lincolnton 


52 


83 


135 


TOTAL 


340 


663 


1003 


28TH DISTRICT (4 Judges) 









78.3 



Henderson — Hendersonville 


46 Vi 


97 Vi 


144 


McDowell Marion 


20 


94 


114 


Polk — Columbus 


5 


36 Vi 


41 Vi 


Rutherford Rutherfordton 


25 Vi 


64 


89 Vi 


Transylvania Brevard 


30 Vi 


38 


68 Vi 


TOTAL 


127 Vi 


330 


457 Vi 


30TH DISTRICT (3 Judges) 








Cherokee Murphy 


6Vi 


25 Vi 


32 


Clay Hayesville 


Vi 


9 


9Vi 


Graham Robbinsville 


5Vi 


20 Vi 


26 


Haywood Waynesville 


37 


63 Vi 


lOOVi 


Canton 





15 


15 


Jackson Sylva 


12 


26 


38 


Macon Franklin 


l2Vi 


26 


38 Vi 


Swam Bryson City 


8 


25 


33 


TOTAL 


K2 


210 Vi 


292 Vi 


GRAND TOTAL 


6,670 </4 


1 1 ,922 Va 


18,593 



1 8 Vi 3 1 49 Vi 

116 83 Vi 199Vi 

57 Vi 57 'A 

19Vi 32 Vi 52 

91Vi 109 200 Vi 

28 28 

245 Vi 341 Vi 587 

ach seat were not necessarily held by a judge assigned to the designated judicial district. In 1976 District Court 
Judges held a total of 281 days of court in judicial districts other than their own. A day of court is defined as at least a two hour session 
before lunch and at least a two hour session after lunch. Judicial hospitalization, juvenile and domestic relations cases are counted as 
civil court. 

80 



DISTRICT COURT C IVIL DOCKETS 

Civil case activity in the district court division during 1976, which includes small claims assigned to 
magistrates for hearing, is compared with civil case activity during the preceding four years in the 
graphs which follow. There was some increase in civil case filings in 1976 — 224,810, as compared 
with 219,428 in 1975. The number of civil cases pending at the end of 1976 was a few hundred less in 
1976 than in 1975; and the number of civil cases pending at the end of 1976 was 64,651 compared with 
52,049 pending at the end of 1975. 

Tables are presented which show the distribution of pending civil cases among the counties, the ten 
counties with the largest number of cases pending at the end of 1976, and the ten counties with the 
highest and the ten counties with the lowest ratios of dispositions to total caseloads. 

Data is then shown, by judicial districts and by counties, on the number of civil cases pending, filed 
and disposed of in 1976. Following the county-by-county data, the statewide total figures are listed on 
(1) ages of civil cases pending before magistrates as of December 31, 1976; (2) ages of civil cases 
appealed from magistrates and pending in district courts as of December 31, 1976; (3) ages of civil 
child support cases pending in the district courts as of December 31, 1976; (4) ages of civil domestic 
relations cases pending in the district courts as of December 31, 1976; and (5) ages of all other civil 
cases pending in the district courts as of December 31, 1976. (County data tables on ages of all civil 
cases pending in the county's district courts have been distributed to the clerk of superior court in 
each county and to the Chief District Judge for each judicial district.) 

As previously stated in comments on the superior court civil dockets, if the parties involved in a 
civil case are not interested in having the case tried, it will not likely be placed on the trial calendar. 
This may explain why the table on ages of civil cases pending in the district court division show that 
there are a number of cases which have been pending for a period of years. 

This is the first year for which the Adminstrative Office of the Courts has been able to obtain data 
on ages of pending cases. The publication of such data should assist in directing attention to those 
cases in which the parties have so little interest that they should no longer be retained as active 
pending cases but disposed of by dismissal. In any event, it is expected that future annual reports will 
show a significant reduction in the number of civil cases in the district court division which have been 
pending for more than two years. 



CIVIL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976) 



NO- Ol CASES 



240.000 



::o.(x)o 



200.000 



180.000 



1 60.000 



140. 000 



1 20.000 



100.000 



XO.(HK) 



60.000 



40.000 



20.000 



224.XIO 



219.428 




ADD! 1) 



DISPOSH) Ol 



X2 



CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976 



NO. OF CASES 



80,000 



70,000 



60,000 



50,000 



40,000 



68,041 



64,651 




(YEAR) 



83 



DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES 
AMONG THE COUNTIES 

(District Courts) 



Number of 


Less than 


Cases 


100 


Number o\' 




Counties &. 




Year: 1972 


30 


1973 


26 


1974 


24 


1975 


23 


1976 


26 



101-300 



27 
23 
2h 
23 







Over 


1-500 


501-1,000 


1 ,000 


IS 


17 


7 


17 


17 


13 


19 


19 


15 


19 


is 


14 


25 


14 


12 



TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CIVIL DOCKETS 
PENDING AT YEAR END 



County 

♦Mecklenburg 

♦Guilford 

*Durham 

*Wake 

♦Cumberland 

Forsyth 

Gaston 

Wayne 
*New Hanover 
* Buncombe 
STATE MEAN 
♦Counties that were listed in this table in the 1975 Annual Report. 



Pending 

1/1/76 


Filed 


Disposed of 


Pending 

12/31/76 


Relation (% 
of Disposi- 
tions to 
Filings 


5,986 


24,861 


20,744 


10,103 


83.4 


6,577 


20,006 


19,657 


6,926 


98.3 


3,727 


11,246 


10,327 


4,646 


91.8 


3,518 


14,485 


13,563 


4,440 


93.6 


980 


9,123 


8,033 


2,070 


88.1 


904 


9,787 


8,866 


1,825 


90.6 


1,348 


5,385 


5,029 


1,704 


93.4 


1,278 


3,849 


3,424 


1 ,703 


89.0 


943 


5,003 


4,377 


1,569 


87.5 


1,266 


5,250 


5,094 


1,422 


97.0 


520 


2,248 


2,122 


647 


94.4 



84 



TEN COUNTIKS WITH HIGHEST RATIOS OF DISTRICT COURT CIVIL 
DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOADS, 1976 



Greene 

Mitchell 

Alamance 

Chatham 

Iredell 

Camden 

Yadkin 

Hoke 

Edgecombe 

Alexander 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 

418 

327 

3,894 

1,086 

3,369 

138 

930 

811 

3,063 

509 

2,769 



Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


377 


90.2 


293 


89.6 


3,467 


89.0 


962 


88.6 


2,980 


88.5 


122 


88.4 


822 


88.4 


715 


88.2 


2,700 


88.1 


448 


88.0 


2,122 


76.6 



TEN COUNTIES WITH LOWEST RATIOS OF DISTRICT COURT CIVIL 
DISPOSITIONS TO TOTAL CASELOADS, 1976 



Warren 

Richmond 

Person 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Anson 

Transylvania 

Mecklenburg 

Madison 

Durham 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 

763 
1,880 
2,326 

931 
5,127 

801 

860 
30,847 

181 

14,973 

2,769 



Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


466 


61.1 


1,151 


61.2 


1,426 


61.3 


620 


66.6 


3,424 


66.8 


535 


66.8 


575 


66.9 


20,744 


67.2 


122 


67.4 


10,327 


69.0 


2,122 


76.6 



85 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OE CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



CASES FILED, 1976 



CASES DISPOSED OK. 1976 













Total 












Total 




Increase 
Decrease 




Pending 


Small 






Cases 


Total 


By 


By 


By 




Dispo- 


Pending 


in Pendir 


1ST DISTRICT 


1 1/76 


Claims 


Domestic 


Other 


Hied 


Caseload 


Jury 


Judge 


Magistrate 


Other 


sitions 


12/31/76 


Cases 


Camden 


13 


87 


20 


18 


125 


138 





9 


82 


31 


122 


16 


+ 3 


Chowan 


65 


289 


J 3 


14') 


471 


536 


2 


97 


292 


7s 


466 


70 


+ 5 


Currituck 


37 


174 


56 


95 


305 


142 





62 


1 14 


74 


270 


72 


+ 35 


Dare 


131 


193 


73 


81 


147 


478 





x< 


is: 


66 


331 


147 


+ 16 


Gates 


34 


227 


23 


56 


286 


320 





^ 


201 


55 


271 


4'-) 


+ 15 


Pasquotank 


270 


1030 


INI 


339 


1550 


1820 


5 


197 


1035 


270 


1507 


513 


+ 43 


Perquimans 


37 


145 


28 


15 


188 


225 





26 


135 


20 


181 


44 


+ 7 


TOTAL 


587 


2145 


394 


733 


3272 


3859 


7 


509 


2061 


571 


3148 


711 


+ 124 


2ND DISTRICT 




























Beaufort 


252 


1340 


265 


145 


1750 


2002 


3 


327 


1307 


65 


1702 


300 


+ 48 


Hyde 


19 


88 


21 


11 


120 


139 





24 


83 


9 


116 


23 


+ 4 


Martin 


207 


870 


100 


181 


1151 


1358 





129 


774 


97 


) 


(SK 


+ 151 


Tyrrell 


in 


77 


26 


15 


118 


128 


2 


24 


69 


11 


106 


11 


+ 12 


Washington 


50 


376 


69 


133 


578 


628 





110 


329 


IN 


477 


151 


+ 101 


TOTAL 


538 


2751 


481 


485 


3717 


4255 


S 


614 


2562 


220 


3401 


854 


+ 316 


3RD DISTRICT 




























Carteret 


128 


969 


502 


205 


1476 


1604 


2 


542 


642 


236 


1222 


382 


+ 254 


Craven 


710 


1147 


579 


685 


2411 


3121 


6 


722 


1121 


540 


2389 


732 


+ 22 


Pamlico 


63 


171 


68 


90 


329 


392 


l 


46 


161 


112 


320 


72 


+ 9 


Pitt 


536 


2336 


674 


506 


3516 


4052 


2 


484 


2175 


288 


2949 


1103 


+ 567 


TOTAL 


1437 


4623 


1623 


1486 


7732 


9169 


II 


1594 


4099 


1176 


6880 


2289 


+ 852 


4TH DISTRICT 




























Duplin 


243 


12X9 


200 


1 84 


1673 


1916 





231 


1247 


132 


1610 


506 


+ 63 


Junes 


25 


163 


6 


132 


301 


326 





53 


137 


50 


240 


86 


+ 61 


Onslow 


1457 


1869 


757 


229 


2855 


4312 


15 


706 


2418 


183 


3322 


'»«) 


- 467 


Sampson 


68 


1683 


295 


24S 


2223 


2291 


5 


354 


1487 


159 


2005 


286 


+ 218 


TOTAL 


1793 


5004 


1258 


790 


7052 


8845 


20 


1344 


5289 


524 


7177 


1668 


- 125 


5TH DISTRICT 




























New Hanover 


943 


3022 


1029 


952 


5003 


5946 


89 


1010 


2777 


SOI 


4377 


1569 


+ 626 


Pender 


155 


425 


78 


85 


588 


743 


l 


78 


404 


140 


623 


120 


- 35 


TOTAL 


1098 


3447 


1107 


1037 


5591 


6689 


«>o 


1088 


3181 


64! 


5000 


1689 


+ 591 


6 Til DISTRICT 




























Bertie 


33 


573 


43 


96 


712 


745 





S4 


466 


46 


566 


17V 


+ 146 


H a 1 1 fa x 


8 1 ; 


1274 


285 


1 1 1 


1670 


2485 


18 


28S 


1382 


250 


1935 


550 


- 265 


Hertford 


257 


526 


! IX 


126 


770 


1027 


2 


90 


492 


92 


676 


551 


+ 94 


Northampton 


262 


646 


149 


116 


911 


1173 





1 10 


743 


128 


981 


192 


- 70 


TOTAL 


1367 


3019 


595 


449 


4063 


5430 


20 


539 


3083 


516 


4158 


1272 


- 95 


7TH DISTRICT 




























1 ' 'imbe 


186 


2304 


275 


298 


2877 


3063 


1 


297 


2233 


169 


2700 


363 


+ 177 


Nash 


580 


1814 


496 


365 


2675 


3055 


4 


384 


1846 


233 


2467 


SXX 


+ 208 


V. ilson 


409 


2207 


338 


287 


2832 


3241 


5 


321 


2194 


243 


2763 


478 


+ 69 


roi \i 


975 


6325 


1109 


950 


8384 


9359 


10 


1002 


6273 


645 


7930 


1429 


+ 454 



86 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OF CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 









CASKS FILED, 1976 








(ASKS 


> DISPOSED 


OF, 197 


6 


























Increase/ 












Total 












Total 




Decrease 




Pending 


Small 






Cases 


Total 


By 


By 


By 




Dispo- 


Pending 


in Pending 


8TH DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


Claims 


Domestic 


Other 


Filed 


Caseload 


Jury 


Judge 


Magistrate 


Other 


sitions 


12/31/76 


Cases 


Greene 


64 


235 


12 


107 


354 


418 





97 


262 


18 


377 


41 


- 23 


Lenoir 


568 


2502 


438 


4:< 


3363 


3931 


8 


424 


2376 


269 


3077 


854 


+ 286 


Wayne 


1278 


2356 


730 


763 


3849 


5127 


1 


652 


2322 


448 


3424 


1703 


+ 425 


TOTAL 


1910 


5093 


1180 


1293 


7566 


9476 


10 


1173 


4960 


735 


6878 


2598 


+ 688 


9TH DISTRICT 




























Franklin 


260 


700 


144 


95 


939 


1199 





257 


569 


46 


872 


127 


+ 67 


Granville 


271 


1130 


132 


113 


1375 


1646 


2 


112 


1114 


79 


1307 


339 


+ 68 


Person 


1245 


753 


110 


218 


1081 


2326 


2 


231 


1025 


168 


1426 


900 


- 345 


Vance 


558 


1500 


7^ 


335 


1910 


2468 





201 


1404 


109 


1714 


754 


+ 196 


Warren 


235 


353 


109 


66 


528 


763 





XX 


310 


68 


466 


297 


+ 62 


TOTAL 


2569 


4436 


570 


827 


5833 


8402 


4 


889 


4422 


470 


5785 


2617 


+ 48 


WTH DISTRICT 





























Wake 



3518 



8351 



2807 



3327 14,485 18,003 11 



3563 



7198 



2791 13,563 4,440 



+ 922 



1 1 TH DISTRICT 



Harnett 


784 


1490 


522 


389 


2201 


2985 


\(i 


379 


1398 


VIA 


2181 


804 


+ 20 


Johnston 


649 


1818 


81 


866 


2765 


3414 


12 


524 


1759 


449 


2744 


670 


*+ 21 


Lee 


343 


940 


270 


288 


1498 


1841 


6 


292 


941 


268 


1507 


334 


- 9 


TOTAL 


1776 


4248 


673 


1543 


6464 


8240 


m 


1195 


4098 


1111 


6432 


1808 


+ 32 


I2TH DISTRICT 




























Cumberland 


980 


5360 


2461 


1302 


9123 


10,103 


X 


1835 


4948 


1242 


8033 


2070 


+ 1090 


Hoke 


83 


382 





346 


728 


811 





70 


386 


259 


715 


96 


+ 13 


TOTAL 


1063 


5742 


2461 


1648 


9851 


10,914 


8 


1905 


5334 


1501 


8748 


2166 


+ 1103 


13TH DISTRICT 




























Bladen 


139 


548 


I4S 


216 


909 


1048 


3 


105 


535 


206 


849 


199 


+ 60 


Brunswick 


430 


712 


203 


165 


1080 


1510 


4 


279 


706 


202 


1191 


319 


- Ill 


Columbus 


873 


1402 


130 


521 


2053 


2926 


12 


376 


1408 


443 


2239 


(>X7 


- 186 


TOTAL 


1442 


2662 


478 


902 


4042 


5484 


19 


760 


2649 


851 


4279 


1205 


- 237 


NTH DISTRICT 





























Durham 



3727 



8906 



1304 



1036 



11246 



14973 



1364 



7094 



1X58 



10327 4646 



+ 919 



15TH DISTRICT 



Alamance 


558 


1980 


947 


409 


3336 


3894 


15 


999 


1926 


527 


3467 


427 


- 131 


Chatham 


45 


762 


150 


129 


1041 


1086 


1 


1 50 


735 


76 


962 


124 


+ 79 


Orange 


242 


1045 


373 


321 


1739 


1981 


4 


297 


1022 


14^ 


1468 


513 


+ 271 


TOTAL 


845 


3787 


1470 


859 


6116 


6961 


20 


1446 


3683 


748 


5897 


1064 


+ 219 


16TH DISTRICT 




























Robeson 


1028 


2496 


1X0 


1103 


3779 


4807 


5 


687 


2256 


543 


3491 


1316 


+ 288 


Scotland 


287 


743 


67 


379 


1189 


1476 


-> 


314 


775 


116 


1207 


269 


- 18 


TOTAL 


1315 


3239 


247 


1482 


4968 


6283 


7 


1001 


3031 


659 


4698 


1585 


+ 270 



87 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OF CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



( VSES FILED, 1976 



(ASKS DISPOSED OF, 1976 





























Increase/ 












Total 












Total 




Decrease 




Pending 


Small 






Cases 


Total 


Bj 


By 


R > 




Dispo- 


Pending 


in Pending 


UTH DISTRICT 


1 1 76 


Claims 


Domestic 


Other 


Filed 


Caseload 


Jur> 


Judge 


Magistrate 


Other 


sitions 


12/31/76 


Cases 


Caswell 


IS 


404 


121 


49 


574 


592 





63 


365 


77 


505 


87 


+ 69 


Rockingham 


194 


1 S50 


621 


S19 


2790 


2984 


3 


549 


1669 


221 


2442 


542 


+ 348 


Stokes 


27 


534 


153 


89 


776 


803 





117 


484 


54 


655 


148 


+ 121 


Surrv 


t>4l 


2270 


327 


355 


2952 


3593 


5 


198 


2503 


399 


3105 


488 


- 153 


TOTAL 


880 


5058 


1222 


812 


7052 


7972 


8 


927 


5021 


751 


6707 


1265 


+ 385 


18TH DISTRICT 




























Guilford 




























Greensboro 


5590 


9074 


1999 


3941 


15014 


20604 


13 


2411 


9281 


3002 


14707 


5897 + 


307 


High Point 


987 


3660 


831 


501 


4992 


5979 


IS 


903 


3670 


359 


4950 


1029 + 


42 


TOTAL 


6577 


12734 


2830 


4442 


20006 


26583 


31 


3314 


12951 


3361 


19657 


6926 + 


349 



1VTH DISTRICT 



Cabarrus 


517 


!(l.s4 


608 


437 


2129 


2646 


15 


557 


1029 


583 


2184 


462 


_ 


55 


Montgomery 


226 


639 


s: 


144 


865 


1091 





117 


736 


59 


912 


179 


- 


47 


Randolph 


277 


1050 


449 


203 


1702 


1979 


4 


434 


951 


190 


1579 


400 


+ 


123 


Rouan 


189 


1923 


567 


333 


2823 


3012 


11 


828 


1458 


332 


2629 


383 


t 


194 


TOTAL 


1209 


4696 


1706 


1117 


7519 


8728 


Ml 


1936 


4174 


1164 


7304 


1424 


+ 


215 


20TH DISTRICT 






























Anson 


195 


141 


119 


46 


606 


801 





1 13 


372 


30 


535 


266 


+ 


71 


Moore 


475 


796 


136 


304 


1236 


1711 


5 


303 


748 


265 


1321 


390 


- 


ss 


Richmond 


636 


832 


259 


153 


1244 


1880 


7 


269 


775 


100 


1151 


729 


+ 


93 


Stanly 


312 


959 


266 


194 


1419 


1731 


1 


361 


947 


IS') 


1468 


263 


- 


4') 


Union 


381 


1368 


326 


257 


1951 


2332 


2 


327 


1439 


744 


2012 


320 


- 


61 


TOTAL 


1999 


4396 


1106 


954 


6456 


8455 


IS 


1393 


4281 


798 


6487 


1968 


— 


31 


2 1ST DISTRICT 































Forsuh 



904 



5739 



2072 



1976 



9787 



I06«M 



22 



1936 



5362 



1546 



8866 1825 + 921 



22SD DISTRICT 



Alexander 


68 


295 


96 


50 


441 


509 





109 


281 


58 


448 


61 


- 7 


Davidson 


337 


1244 


679 


J98 


2421 


2758 


7 


792 


1243 


284 


2326 


432 


+ 95 


D.i'. ie 


97 


191 


37 


145 


373 


470 





119 


188 


75 


382 


ss 


9 


Iredell 


543 


2007 


439 


380 


2826 


3369 


IS 


444 


2190 


328 


2980 


389 


- 154 


FOI \l 


1045 


3737 


1251 


1073 


6061 


7106 


25 


1464 


3902 


745 


6136 


970 


- 75 


23RD DISTRICT 




























Alleghany 


12 


103 


66 


152 


321 


353 


5 


163 


94 


29 


291 


62 


+ 30 


' 


74 


234 


84 


s: 


370 


444 


1 


100 


140 


132 


373 


71 


3 


Wilkes 


602 


821 


137 


762 


1920 


2522 


1 1 


348 


601 


1108 


2068 


454 


- 148 


• 


127 


505 


1X7 


II 1 


803 


930 


5 


177 


514 


126 


822 


108 


19 


IOI \l 


835 


1663 


674 


1077 


3414 


4249 


22 


788 


1349 


1395 


3554 


695 


140 



88 



CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OF CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



CASES FILED, 1976 



CASES DISPOSED OF, 1976 





























Increase/ 












Total 












Total 




Decrease 




Pending 


Small 






Cases 


Total 


B) 


By 


By 




Dispo- 


Pending 


in Pending 


24 TH DISTRICT 


1/1/76 


Claims 


Domestic 


Other 


Filed 


Caseload 


Jury 


Judge 


Magistrate 


Other 


sitions 


12/31/76 


C 


ases 


Avery 


69 


173 


49 


82 


(114 


373 


3 


49 


158 


91 


101 


72 


+ 


3 


Madison 


l 1 


70 


49 


51 


170 


181 


2 


40 


61 


19 


122 


59 


+ 


48 


Mitchell 


52 


155 


10 


■m 


275 


327 





121 


123 


49 


293 


54 


- 


18 


Watauga 


14') 


296 


1 24 


362 


782 


931 


1 


130 


252 


237 


620 


!1 1 


+ 


162 


Yancey 


73 


143 


sx 


57 


258 


331 


2 


61 


182 


41 


286 


45 


- 


28 


TOTAL 


354 


837 


310 


642 


1789 


2143 


8 


401 


776 


437 


1622 


521 


+ 


167 


25TH DISTRICT 






























Burke 


392 


940 


432 


276 


1648 


2040 


3 


439 


885 


255 


1582 


458 


+ 


66 


Caldwell 


281 


1039 


24 


625 


1688 


1969 


3 


532 


859 


173 


1567 


402 


+ 


121 


Catawba 


475 


1962 


931 


463 


3356 


3831 





748 


1777 


566 


3091 


740 


+ 


265 


TOTAL 


1148 


3941 


1387 


1364 


6692 


7840 


6 


1719 


3521 


994 


6240 


1600 


+ 


452 


26TH DISTRICT 






























Mecklenburg 


5986 


15823 


1279 


7759 


24861 


30847 


48 


4652 


14144 


1900 


20744 


10103 


+ 4117 


27TH DISTRICT 






























Cleveland 


182 


1633 


585 


305 


2523 


2705 


7 


581 


1584 


178 


2350 


355 


+ 


173 


Gaston 


1348 


3090 


s7S 


1720 


5385 


6733 


18 


1489 


2299 


1223 


5029 


1704 


+ 


356 


Lincoln 


82 


577 


234 


155 


966 


1048 


6 


250 


504 


119 


879 


169 


+ 


87 


TOTAL 


1612 


5300 


1394 


2180 


8874 


10486 


» 


2320 


4387 


1520 


8258 


2228 


+ 


616 


28TH DISTRICT 






























Buncombe 


1266 


3223 


1263 


764 


5250 


6516 


8 


1290 


3304 


492 


5094 


1422 


+ 


1% 


29TH DISTRICT 






























Henderson 


193 


588 


462 


234 


1284 


1477 


I 


629 


517 


43 


1190 


2X7 


+ 


94 


McDowell 


619 


433 


197 


67 


697 


1316 


5 


391 


355 


329 


1080 


2 56 


- 


1X1 


Polk 


62 


101 


52 


25 


178 


240 





49 


92 


50 


191 


49 


- 


13 


Rutherford 


213 


860 


288 


127 


1275 


1488 


1 


355 


882 


66 


1307 


181 


- 


32 


Transylvania 


241 


381 


157 


81 


619 


860 





171 


344 


60 


575 


285 


+ 


44 


TOTAL 


1328 


2363 


1156 


534 


4053 


5381 


Hi 


1595 


2190 


548 


4343 


1038 


— 


290 


30TH DISTRICT 






























Cherokee 


124 


206 


7X 


83 


367 


491 


-> 


43 


1 10 


268 


423 


68 


— 


56 


Clay 


8 


60 


16 


28 


104 


112 





28 


59 


5 


92 


20 


+ 


12 


Graham 


10 


93 


51 


14 


138 


148 





27 


88 


1 


117 


31 


+ 


21 


Haywood 


355 


713 


231 


175 


1119 


1474 


28 


286 


711 


190 


1215 


259 


- 


96 


Jackson 


178 


178 


65 


81 


324 


502 


26 


126 


209 


65 


426 


76 


- 


102 


Macon 


182 


123 


58 


55 


236 


418 


4 


83 


127 


83 


297 


1 21 


- 


61 


Swain 


89 


185 


63 


38 


286 


375 


4 


75 


235 


11 


325 


50 


- 


39 


TOTAL 


946 


1558 


542 


474 


2574 


3520 


64 


668 


1539 


624 


2895 


625 


- 


$21 


GRAND TOTAL 


52049 


144846 


35949 


44015 


224810 


276859 


609 


44389 


135918 


31292 


212208 


64651 


+ 12602 



89 



STATEWIDE TOTALS — CIVIL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 

I. AGES OE CIVIL CASES PENDING BEFORE MAGISTRATES, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



State Totals 
% of Totals 



Total less Than 
Pending 30 Days 

14.056 5.630 
40.1% 



30-60 

Days 

1.591 

11. 3 r 



61-90 
Days 

996 

7.1" 



91-180 
Days 

1,297 

9.2% 



181 Davs 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Creator 
To 1 Year To 2 Yrs. To 3 Yrs. To 4 Yrs. To 5 Yrs. Than 5 Yrs. 



1.342 

9.5% 



2,149 

153% 



645 

4.6% 



149 

1.1% 



53 

0.4% 



204 

1.5% 



II. AGES OK CIVIL CASES APPEALED FROM MAGISTRATES AND PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, 
DECEMBER 31, 1976 



State Totals 
% of Totals 



Total Less Than 
Pending 30 Days 


30-60 
Days 


61-90 
Days 


91-180 
Days 


181 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Yrs. 


2 Years 
To 3 Yrs 


1 J87 90 

6.5% 


129 

9.3% 


115 

8.3% 


248 

17.9% 


387 

27.9% 


337 

24.3% 


79 

5.7% 



2 
0.1% 



III. AGES OF CIVIL CHILD SUPPORT CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



State Totals 
% of Totals 



Total Less Than 
Pending 30 Days 

1,198 277 

23.1% 



30-60 
Days 

177 
14.8% 



61-90 
Days 

149 

12.4% 



91-180 
Days 

259 

21.6% 



181 Davs I Year 2 Years 
To 1 Year To 2 Yrs. To 3 Yrs. 



3 Years 4 Years Greater 
To 4 Yrs. To 5 Yrs. Than 5 Yrs. 



335 

28.0% 



1 
0.1% 



IV. AGES OF CIVIL CHILD SUPPORT CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



State Totals 
% of Totals 



Total Less Than 
Pending 30 Days 

16,666 1,703 

10.2% 



30-60 
Days 

1,787 
10.7% 



61-90 
Days 

1,075 

6.5% 



41-JKO 
Days 

2,063 

12.4% 



181 Days 1 Year 
To I Year To 2 Yrs. 



2,937 

17.6% 



3,067 

18.4% 



2 Years 
To 3 Yrs. 

1,617 

9.7% 



3 Years 4 Years Greater 
To 4 Yrs. To 5 Yrs. Than 5 Yrs. 



820 

4.9% 



510 

3.1% 



1,087 

6.5% 



V. AGES OE OTHER CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



State Totals 
% of Total 



Total Less Than 30-60 
Pending 30 Days Days 



31,460 



2,408 

7.7% 



2,740 

8.7% 



61-90 
Days 

1,706 

5.4% 



91-180 
Days 

3,810 
12.H 



181 Davs I Year 2 Years 
To 1 Year To 2 Yrs. To 3 Yrs. 



3 Years 4 Years Greater 
To 4 Yrs. To 5 Yrs. Than 5 Yrs. 



6,284 

20.0% 



6,658 
2I.2<; 



3,757 
11.9% 



1,694 

5.4% 



837 

2.7% 



1,566 

5.0% 



90 



JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS 

For purposes of juvenile jurisdiction of the district courts, a juvenile or "child" is defined as being, 
with two exceptions, one who has not reached his or her eighteenth birthday and "is not married, 
emancipated, or a member of the armed services of the United States." The exceptions are where the 
person has committed, or is alleged to have committed, a criminal offense, including violations of the 
motor vehicle laws; or has violated the conditions, the statutes provide that a juvenile or child is one 
who has not reached his or her sixteenth birthday. 

The following table presentes data, by judicial district and by county, on the number of offenses 
and conditions alleged in juvenile petitions and on the number of children before the courts for the 
first time. The second table shows, by judicial district and by county, the number of adjudicatory 
hearings in juvenile proceedings during 1976. 

The number of children before juvenile courts for the first time totalled 12,007 in 1976, compared 
with 13,190 in 1975, a decrease of 8.9%. The number of adjudicatory hearings in 1976 was 22,906, 
compared with 27,131 in 1975, a decrease of 15.58%. 

It appears that these decreases in the number of children before the courts for the first time and in 
the number of adjudicatory hearings are due in large measure to the State's intake program, which is 
adminstered by the Juvenile Services Division. The intake program, which became operational 
statewide early in 1976, endeavors to resolve undisciplined or delinquent complaints without the 
necessity of a juvenile court proceeding. A complaint may be resolved by intake counselors, or it may 
be referred to another community resource, such as a mental health clinic or the local department of 
social services. 

The relative composition of the caseload varies little fromt he previous year. Of the total number of 
offenses and conditions alleged, delinquency accounted for 58.2%, undisciplined for 21.2%, depen- 
dency for 10.2%s and neglect for 10.4%. The total number of delinquency allegations in 1976 was 13,- 
241, a decrease of 1,91 1 from the previous year, a 12.6% decrease. Undisciplined allegations decreased 
from 5,275 in 1975, to 4,825 in 1976. On the other hand, dependency allegations increased from 2,237 
in 1975, to 2,333 in 1976; and allegations of neglect increased from 2,136 in 1975 to 2,358 in 1976. 

It was not feasible in 1976 to incorporate the reporting of juvenile case data in the revised data 
reporting system referred to in the Introduction to this year's annual report. For this reason, data on 
the ages of juvenile petitions pending on December 31, 1976 is not available. 



91 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS AND 
NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEFORE COURT FOR FIRST TIME* 









January 1, 1976 — 


December 31, 1976 


















OFFENSES 






CONDITIONS 














Delinquent 






H 


n disciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 




Children 


























Before 


1ST DISTRICT 




Other 


Misde- 


Probation 














Grand 


Court For 


Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Violation 


Total 


Truancy 


Other 


Total 






Total 


First Time 


Camden 


o 





T 





•) 


1 





1 





n 


3 


3 


Chowan 





3 


r 


6 


36 


3 


i 


5 


n 


u 


41 


33 


Currituck 


o 


15 


i' 





28 


l 





1 








29 


16 


Dare 


(• 


i 


29 





)0 





(1 


(i 


3 


1 


34 


27 


Gates 


ii 


ii 


4 


ii 


4 


1 


1 


2 


H 





6 


6 


Pasquotank 





17 


40 


12 


69 


2 


7 


9 


5 


8 


91 


!7 


Perquimans 





ii 


I l 





11 





(i 





(l 





II 


3 


TOTAL 


II 


16 


I2f. 


IS 


IKII 


8 


III 


18 


8 


<) 


215 


125 


2ND DISTRICT 


























Beaufort 


1 


X 


Ml 


8 


67 


1 


8 


9 


2 


1? 


90 


HI 


Hyde 


o 


1) 


4 





4 


1 





1 


(1 


2 


7 


7 


Martin 





15 


IS 


7 


in 


II 


4 


4 


7 


ss 


109 


43 


Tyrell 








6 





6 


1) 








1) 





6 


<> 


Washington 





ii 


14 


1 


15 


1 


2 


3 


1 


1(1 


29 


24 


TOTAL 


1 


23 


'»2 


16 


132 


3 


14 


17 


HI 


82 


241 


«X> 


3RD DISTRICT 


























Carteret 





24 


60 





X4 


7 


18 


25 


11 


11 


111 


129 


Craven 


1 


28 


61 


J5 


125 


5 


57 


4: 


19 


39 


225 


1 M 


Pamlico 





1 


25 


ii 


26 


2 


1 


5 


H 


1 


30 


33 


Pitt 





74 


45 


!8 


157 


16 


V) 


55 


20 


4 1 


273 


161 


TOTAL 


1 


12^ 


l>»l 


73 


392 


Ml 


«>5 


125 


50 


92 


659 


457 


4TH DISTRICT 


























Duplin 


II 





29 


l 


to 


13 


1 


14 


(I 


X 


^2 


s2 


Jones 





3 


4 


ii 


7 


8 


1) 


8 


3 


5 


21 


16 


Onslow 


II 


Mil 


112 


l., 


229 


7 


64 


71 


IX 


38 


156 


1X4 


Sampson 





1 


23 


17 


41 


3 


5 


8 


5 


19 


73 


59 


TOTAL 


II 


MIS 


I6X 


U 


?07 


Jl 


7(1 


Mil 


26 


70 


504 


311 


5TH DISTRICT 


























Nev. Hanover 





248 


227 


113 


588 


16 


50 


86 


28 


11 


733 


249 


Pender 





4 


38 


5 


7 


3 


10 


13 


12 


15 


87 


32 


IOI M 


II 


252 


265 


118 


635 


V) 


6(1 


<)<) 


40 


46 


820 


281 


6TH DISTRICT 


























Bertie 





5 


26 


1 


32 


1 


3 


4 


3 


5 


44 


40 


Halifax 


II 


15 


79 


in 


Ui4 


1 1 


HI 


?! 


23 


17 


165 


87 


Hertford 





2 


32 


8 


42 


1 


2 


3 





1 


46 


28 


Northampton 





9 


?u 





29 


1 


2 


6 


7 


8 


50 


42 


TO I \l s 





$1 


157 


\>> 


207 


17 


17 


14 


}3 


11 


305 


197 


777/ DISTRICT 


























Edgecombe 


'1 


69 


128 


26 


223 


1 


7 


8 


25 


44 


300 


1 10 


' 


ll 


16 


105 


in 


131 


6 


10 


26 


35 


31 


223 


124 


Wilson 


1 


96 


28 


3 


128 


5 


II 


16 


23 


31 


198 


85 


TOTAL 


! 


IXI 


261 


V) 


482 


12 


IX 


so 


81 


106 


721 


339 



<;2 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS AND 
NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEFORE COURT FOR FIRST TIME* 



8TH DISTRICT 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 
TOTAL 



Capital 




(i 



January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 



Other 
Felony 

I 
50 
43 
*»4 



Misde- Probation 

meanor Violation Total Truancy Other 



51 
263 
133 

427 



4 
56 

54 

<»4 



36 
349 
230 
615 



2 
16 
22 
411 



2 

27 
U 
63 



Total 

4 

43 

56 

103 



Dependent Neglected 



3 

5 

53 

41 



7 
45 
51 
S3 



Children 
Before 
Grand Court For 
Total First Time 



50 
442 
350 
842 



29 
135 
193 

357 



9TH DISTRICT 

Franklin 
Granville 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 
TOTAL 






6 


14 


2 


22 





13 


13 


12 


!9 


Xh 


46 





46 


49 


4 


99 


7 


7 


14 


6 


1 


120 


56 


(i 


x 


16 


5 


27 


5 


15 


20 


7 


7 


61 


44 








53 


32 


85 


24 


16 


40 


20 


12 


157 


121 


il 


15 


21 





56 


2 


1 


3 





2 


41 


141 


(I 


75 


153 


4! 


269 


38 


52 


90 


45 


61 


465 


408 



10TH DISTRICT 

Wake 
TOTAL 






70 


153 


51 


274 


12 


153 


165 


24 


27 


490 


524 


(1 


70 


153 


51 


274 


12 


153 


165 


24 


27 


490 


324 



1 1 TH DISTRICT 



Harnett 


5 


1 


74 


51 


109 


54 


29 


83 


14 


78 


284 


174 


Johnston 


1 


23 


66 


33 


121 


4X 


11 


59 


35 


29 


246 


II 5 


Lee 


3 


23 


57 


26 


109 


24 


32 


56 


68 


10 


243 


97 


TOTAL 


7 


47 


197 


<NI 


US 


126 


72 


198 


117 


117 


773 


384 



12TH DISTRICT 



Cumberland 


(i 


127 


505 


109 


541 


II 


20* 


214 


406 


208 


1369 


1147 


Hoke 





5 


22 


5 


32 


6 


19 


25 


2 


7 


66 


54 


TOTAL 





H2 


327 


114 


573 


17 


222 


239 


408 


215 


1435 


1201 



UTH DISTRICT 



Bladen 





3 


15 


3 


21 


1 


7 


8 


1 


9 


59 


49 


Brunswick 





(I 


51 





it 


65 


II 


76 


4 


17 


128 


I2X 


Columbus 


n 


10 


41 


2(> 


79 


1 ' 


24 


57 


25 


32 


173 


121 


TOTAL 


(l 


13 


89 


2*> 


131 


79 


42 


12! 


50 


5X 


340 


298 



I4TH DISTRICT 

Durham 
TOTAL 



14') 
14<J 



54 
54 



4.', 
46 



250 
250 



3 


47 


50 


132 


55 


4X7 


1X4 


3 


47 


50 


132 


55 


487 


184 



15TH DISTRICT 



Alamance 


1 


6 


61 


61 


129 


15 


27 


42 


l S 


27 


21 l 


146 


Chatham 








25 





25 


7 


x 


15 





14 


54 


47 


Orange 


n 


12 


1>» 


2 


53 


X 


15 


23 


15 


16 


X7 


170 


TOTAL 


1 


IX 


IH5 


63 


1X7 


M\ 


50 


XII 


2X 


57 


352 


363 



93 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS AND 
NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEFORE COURT FOR FIRST TIME* 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 









Delinquent 






Ui 


ndisciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 




Children 


























Before 






Other 


Misde- 


Probation 














Grand 


Court For 


16TH DISTRICT 


Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Violation 


Total 


Truancy 


Other 


Total 






Total 


First Time 


Robeson 


1 


100 


147 


71 


320 


65 


95 


160 


51 


57 


SXX 


265 


Scotland 





41 


46 


24 


II I 


18 


Jl 


49 


6 


54 


200 


135 


TOTAL 


2 


141 


193 


«>s 


431 


83 


126 


209 


57 


«*1 


788 


400 


1"TH DISTRICT 


























Caswell 


1 


10 


12 





23 


9 


^ 


12 


1 


15 


51 


36 


RiK-kinaham 


(I 


7 


M)4 


is 


149 


15 


51 


46 


II 


n 


284 


I2X 


Stokes 





1 


28 


i) 


29 


1 l 


5 


IX 





5 


52 


46 


Sum 


n 


16 


11 


16 


41 


6 


10 


K. 


10 


14 


XI 


61 


TOTAL 


1 


M 


155 


54 


244 


43 


4«? 


92 


22 


112 


470 


271 



I8TH DISTRICT 

Guilford 
TOTAL 



278 
278 



654 
654 



396 
396 



1328 
1328 



147 
147 



41? 
432 



579 

579 



208 
208 



250 
250 



2365 
2365 



X7I 
871 



/ 977/ DISTRICT 



Cabarrus 





8 


68 


23 


99 


9 


21 


11) 


X 


X 


145 


91 


Montgomery 





(i 


IX 


i) 


IX 


5 


1 


6 


2 


17 


41 


u 


Randolph 





6 


2h 


23 


55 


ID 


41 


51 


13 


IX 


157 


100 


Rowan 





in 


98 


IX 


166 


46 


17 


63 


78 


105 


412 


270 


TOTAL 


II 


44 


210 


84 


338 


70 


80 


150 


101 


168 


757 


494 



20TH DISTRICT 



Anson 





18 


XX 


41 


147 


5 


27 


32 





3 


1X2 


so 


Moore 





-1 


28 


20 


99 


15 


9 


24 


13 


70 


156 


7') 


Stanly 


'1 


4 


137 


14 


155 


1 l 


7 


20 


14 


17 


206 


92 


Union 





11 


104 


7S 


210 


u 


28 


61 


S7 


24 


552 


124 


Richmond 


5 


2 1 


41 


54 


129 


1? 


15 


27 


7 


5 


168 


X7 


TOTAL 


5 


131 


4<M< 


204 


740 


78 


86 


164 


4! 


6«> 


1064 


432 


2 1 ST DISTRICT 


























Forsyth 





259 


376 


125 


760 


62 


201 


263 


XI 


74 


1178 


549 


TOTAL 


n 


259 


376 


125 


760 


(.2 


201 


263 


81 


74 


1178 


549 



22ND DISTRICT 



Alexander 





13 


8 





21 


1 


9 


10 


2 


is 


4X 


19 


Davidson 


1 


44 


83 


32 


160 


IV 


no 


14') 


54 


!! 


594 


1X4 


Da ie 





5 


35 


o 


40 


1 


8 


9 





7 


56 


28 


Iredell 





16 


108 


N 


i 15 


12 


46 


58 


29 


W 


291 


1X7 


TOTAL 


1 


7X 


234 


41 


356 


53 


171 


226 


8S 


122 


789 


438 



23RD DISTRICT 



Alleghany 








6 





6 


3 


1 


4 








III 


1 1 


Ashe 


') 


1 


29 





30 


25 


21 


46 


3 


3 


X? 


66 


WHkes 


2 


\u 


19 


76 


143 


11 


35 


62 


24 


52 


2X1 


M4 


Yadkin 


') 


4 


M, 




61 


17 


') 


26 


20 


25 


1 1? 


91 


TO! \l 


2 


21 


1 lit 


X7 


240 


72 


66 


138 


47 


8(1 


505 


302 



94 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS AND 
NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEFORE COURT FOR FIRST TIME* 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 
OFFENSES CONDITIONS 



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 



Dependent Neglected 



24TH DISTRICT 

Avery 
Madison 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 
TOTAL 



Capital 

I 
I 

o 


o 

2 



Other 
Felony 

3 
7 
-4 
X 
9 
31 



Misde- 
meanor 

5 
2 

7 
7 


21 



Probation 
Violation 

1 
o 


10 


II 



Total Truancy Other Total 



10 
10 

II 

25 

9 

65 



4 
7 



14 



l > 

2 
\ 
8 

2 
24 



13 
9 
6 

x 
2 

W 



13 

I 
15 

15 

2 
46 



2 
5 
2 
3 
2 
14 



Children 
Before 
Grand Court For 
Total First Time 



(X 

25 
54 
51 
15 
163 



54 
25 
37 
33 
15 
144 



25TH DISTRICT 

Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 
TOTAL 






26 


31 


42 


99 


M) 


104 


134 


44 


28 


305 


128 





19 


58 


24 


101 


47 


J 6 


83 


23 


22 


229 


109 


(1 


III 


63 


28 


202 


24 


34 


sx 


4 2 


23 


325 


17') 





156 


152 


14 


402 


101 


174 


275 


109 


73 


859 


416 



26TH DISTRICT 

Mecklenburg 
TOTAL 



831 
831 



688 



185 


1704 


53 


313 


566 


144 


26 


2240 


709 


185 


1704 


53 


313 


366 


144 


26 


2240 


709 



2777/ DISTRICT 



Cleveland 





14 


267 


II 


292 


12 


42 


54 


31 


21 


598 


191 


Gaston 





117 


304 


7 


428 


46 


157 


203 


116 


12 


759 


418 


Lincoln 





27 


39 


X 


74 


24 


2X 


^2 


13 


7 


146 


100 


TOTAL 





158 


610 


26 


794 


82 


227 


309 


160 


« 


1303 


709 



28TH DISTRICT 



Buncombe 


(I 


74 


204 


1 18 


396 


57 


269 


326 


10 


M) 


782 


410 


TOTAL 





74 


204 


118 


396 


57 


269 


326 


30 


50 


782 


410 


29TH DISTRICT 


























Henderson 





51 


65 


M 


133 


18 


49 


67 


5 


56 


241 


132 


McDowell 


II 


1 


49 


19 


69 


12 


9 


21 


14 


29 


133 


114 


Polk 


I) 


n 


11 





11 


3 


1 


4 





3 


IX 


21 


Rutherford 





7 


56 


53 


116 


11 


12 


21 


21 


12 


171 


94 


Transylvania 


n 


10 


12 


14 


56 


9 


33 


42 


24 





102 


59 


TOTAL 





4V 


193 


123 


365 


53 


104 


857 


fe5 


80 


667 


420 



30TH DISTRICT 



Cherokee 





1 


5 





6 


2 


3 


5 





7 


IX 


IX 


Clay 





7 


5 





12 


1 





1 


1 


5 


17 


17 


Graham 





1 


6 


2 


9 











o 


3 


12 


12 


Haywood 





5 


34 


3 


42 


4 


7 


II 


x 


6 


67 


12 


Jackson 





9 


6 





15 





14 


14 





1 


50 


50 


Macon 


o 


7 


7 





14 


2 


5 


7 


1) 





21 


21 


Swain 





1 


4 





5 


1 


4 


5 


3 





13 


13 


TOTAL 


(1 


31 


67 


5 


103 


10 


33 


43 


12 


20 


178 


123 


CRANDTOTAL 


25 


3,669 


7,052 


2,495 


13,241 


1,463 


3,362 


4,825 


2,333 


2358 


22,757 


12,007 


Percent 


0.2 


27.7 


53 J 


18.8 


100.0 


30.3 


69.7 


100.0 










Percent 










58.2 






21.2 


10.2 


10.4 


100.0 





95 



JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS — ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT* 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 





IV 


in 


queno Hearings 


1 ndiviplined IK 


arings 


Depi 


ndeno Hearings 






N 


egleel Hear 


ifRs 


Tolal 
Hearing 


1ST DISTRICT 


Roraui 


•d 


Dismissed lotal 


Ret dined 


)ismissed 


lolal 


Kctaini-d 


Dismissed 


1 nlal 


Retain 


■d 


Dismissed 


1 olal 


Camden 


1 




i : 


i 





1 



















II 


3 


Chowan 


23 




4 27 


i 


i 


5 


1 


t) 


1 













33 


Currituck 


13 




6 19 


i 


i 


2 








II 


I) 




1) 


I) 


21 


Dare 


35 




31 66 











3 


I 


7 


2 




1 


3 


76 


Gates 


") 




1 3 


i 





1 


(i 


II 










I) 


(I 


4 


Pasquotank 


"0 




6 76 


5 


1 


6 


14 


6 


20 


HI 




I) 


ID 


112 


Perquimans 


l l 




2 13 





1 


1 
















II 


(i 


14 


TOTAL 


155 




51 206 


12 


4 


16 


IS 


It) 


28 


12 




1 


13 


263 



:\D DISTRICT 



Beaufort 


58 


iO 


88 


6 


5 


11 


1 





1 


9 


6 


15 


1 15 


Hyde 


1 


5 


6 


1 





1 








I) 


1 


2 


3 


10 


Martin 


24 


14 


38 


3 


4 


7 


2 


I 


3 


55 


5 


4(1 


88 


Tyrrell 


2 


4 


6 


n 


i) 


n 








n 


(I 


i) 





6 


W ashinston 


12 


6 


18 


4 


(i 


4 


i) 





ii 


7 





7 


29 


TOTAL 


97 


54 


156 


!4 


9 


2'. 


3 


I 


4 


52 


13 


65 


248 



3RD DISTRICT 



Carteret 


62 


19 


I l l 


9 


19 


28 


4 


3 


7 


5 


4 


9 


155 


Craven 


151 


79 


230 


M 


1 i 


1,0 


15 


8 


23 


56 


13 


69 


382 


Pamlico 


10 


6 


16 


5 


2 


7 











o 








23 


Pitt 


121 


95 


216 


42 


27 


69 


13 


7 


20 


36 


8 


44 


549 


TOTAL 


344 


229 


573 


103 


61 


164 


J 2 


18 


50 


97 


25 


122 


909 


4TH DISTRICT 




























Duplin 


s 


18 


23 


ii 


1 


l 


1 


i) 


1 


X 


5 


13 


38 


Jones 





7 


7 


3 


s 


x 


1 


2 


1 





5 


5 


23 


Onslow 


144 


47 


24 1 


17 


44 


(-1 


15 


1 


16 


19 


I l 


(0 


348 


Sampson 


30 


21 


51 


1 1 


5 


16 





2 


2 


26 


16 


42 


111 


TOTAL 


229 


93 


322 


M 


55 


86 


17 


5 


22 


51 


<7 


90 


520 


577/ DISTRICT 




























New Hanover 


■^ 1 ■s 


36 


551 


78 


5 


83 


26 


1 


27 


28 





28 


689 


Pender 


2X 


2 


50 


8 


(i 


8 


4 


7 


11 


9 


3 


12 


61 


TOTAL 


543 


XX 


581 


86 


5 


911 


50 


8 


38 


M 


3 


40 


750 


6TH DISTRICT 




























Bertie 


10 


22 


32 


2 


2 


4 


l 


2 


3 


1 


4 


5 


44 


Halifax 


80 


X9 


169 


ID 


X 


18 


9 


15 


24 


7 


IS 


2^ 


236 


Hertford 


31 


39 


70 


1 


4 


5 





i) 


n 





1 


1 


76 


Northampton 


1 l 


17 


31 


2 





2 


6 


i 


7 


7 


1 


8 


48 


TOTAL 


135 


167 


302 


is 


14 


2') 


16 


IX 


.'.4 


15 


24 


J9 


404 


7/7/ DISTRICT 




























Edgecombe 


174 


46 


220 


5 


4 


9 


20 


2 


22 


33 


5 


38 


289 


N'ash 


103 


16 


119 


14 


ID 


24 


34 


2 


36 


35 





35 


214 


Wilson 


77 


6 


:■: ! 


10 


4 


1 I 


U, 


1 


1 1 


32 





32 


146 


fOTAL 


354 


68 


422 


2>> 


IX 


47 


7 


5 


7S 


too 


s 


10S 


649 



96 



JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS — ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT* 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 





Delinquency Hearings 


J. ndisctp lined Hearings 


Dependency Hear 


iirs 




Neglect Hearings 




8TH DISTRICT 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Tool 


Retained 


Dismissed 


lolal 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained Dismissed 


Total 


Hearings 


Greene 


23 


15 


38 


6 


2 


8 


2 


l 


3 


3 


5 


X 


S7 


Lenoir 


128 


230 


558 


22 


36 


SX 


3 





3 


26 


26 


S2 


471 


Wayne 


180 


120 


300 


45 


25 


70 


40 


12 


S2 


44 


9 


5.1 


475 


TOTAL 


331 


365 


6% 


73 


63 


136 


45 


13 


58 


73 


40 


113 


1003 


977/ DISTRICT 




























Franklin 


15 


8 


23 


9 


9 


IX 


II 


2 


13 


27 


6 


33 


X7 


Granville 


34 


2 


16 


11 





1 1 


X 





X 











5S 


Person 


17 


21 


38 


13 


5 


IX 


2 


3 


5 


1 


5 


6 


67 


Vance 


83 


2 


xs 


40 





40 


19 


1 


20 


12 


o 


12 


157 


Warren 


17 


26 


4< 


2 


1 


3 











2 





2 


4X 


TOTAL 


166 


59 


225 


75 


15 


90 


40 


ft 


4ft 


42 


11 


53 


414 


10TH DISTRICT 




























Wake 


254 


30 


284 


107 


3 


no 


42 


2 


44 


36 


l 


(9 


477 




254 


30 


284 


107 


3 


110 


42 


2 


44 


36 


3 


39 


477 


NTH DISTRICT 




























Harnett 


129 


105 


234 


X4 


45 


129 


17 


9 


26 


106 


61 


167 


556 


Johnston 


37 


91 


I2X 


52 


5X 


1 10 


26 


65 


91 


19 


33 


S2 


1X1 


Lee 


67 


33 


100 


48 


8 


56 


34 


14 


4X 


4 


1 


5 


209 


TOTAL 


233 


229 


462 


184 


111 


295 


77 


88 


165 


129 


95 


224 


1146 


12TH DISTRICT 




























Cumberland 


252 


140 


192 


177 


Ml 


268 


.256 


115 


.171 


155 


56 


211 


1242 


Hoke 


22 


9 


31 


20 





20 


3 


2 


5 


6 





6 


62 


TOTAL 


274 


149 


423 


197 


91 


288 


259 


117 


376 


161 


5ft 


217 


1304 


13TH DISTRICT 




























Bladen 


12 


24 


56 


4 


6 


10 


2 


1 


3 


II 


is 


26 


95 


Brunswick 


2 


7 


9 


4 


7 


11 











1 


1 


2 


22 


Columbus 


66 


46 


112 


46 


24 


70 


36 


2 


38 


27 


l.i 


40 


260 


TOTAL 


100 


77 


177 


54 


37 


91 


38 


3 


41 


39 


29 


ftH 


377 


NTH DISTRICT 




























Durham 


144 


6* 


207 


21 


29 


so 


121 


10 


133 


12 


X 


40 


430 


TOTAL 


144 


63 


207 


21 


2<J 


50 


123 


10 


133 


32 


K 


40 


430 


15TH DISTRICT 




























Alamance 


79 


16 


95 


23 


2 


25 


9 


2 


II 


20 


4 


24 


155 


Chatham 


22 


16 


38 


4 


3 


12 


3 





3 


6 


3 


9 


62 


Orange 


69 


22 


91 


21 





21 


10 


4 


14 


26 


2 


2X 


154 


TOTAL 


170 


54 


224 


53 


5 


58 


22 


6 


28 


52 


9 


ft! 


371 


I6TH DISTRICT 




























Robeson 


279 


26 


305 


104 


9 


113 


IX 


17 


ss 


31 


10 


41 


514 


Scotland 


81 


X 


89 


31 


16 


47 


5 





5 


40 





40 


IXI 


TOTAL 


360 


34 


394 


135 


25 


160 


43 


17 


60 


71 


10 


HI 


695 



97 



JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS — ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT* 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 





Delinquency Hea 


ings 


1 ndisciplined Hei 


rings 


1 Up* 


ndencv Hearings 






Neglect Hearings 


Total 
Hearings 


I'TH DISTRICT 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Retained Dismissed 


Tolal 


Casuell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Sum 
TOTAL 


1 1 
1 1" 

14 
27 
171 


4 

27 

9 

4 

44 


15 

146 

23 

31 

215 


7 
26 

5 
16 


2 

14 

I 
211 


9 
40 

7 
18 

74 


10 


5 
15 


i 




i 
z 


1 
10 


6 

17 


9 
62 

1 
6 

7K 


5 
12 

3 
i 1 
31 


14 

74 

4 

17 
109 


39 

270 

34 

72. 

415 


18TH DISTRICT 




























Guilford 


640 
640 


435 
435 


1075 
1075 


222 
222 


244 
244 


466 
466 


127 
127 


40 
40 


167 
167 


158 
158 


71 

71 


229 
229 


1937 
1937 


I9TH DISTRICT 




























Cabarrus 
Montgomery 
Randolph 
Rowan 
TOTAL 


106 

40 

IN 

172 
336 


1 ! 
11 
2s 
55 
107 


119 

51 

46 

227 

443 


26 

4 

34 

92 

1% 


: 
ii 
n 

61 

74 


2* 
4 

4N 

153 
230 


8 



4 

86 

9S 


1 

2 

9 

51 

63 


9 

2 
13 

137 

16! 


9 

IS 

21 
147 
195 


3 
3 

4 
46 


12 

21 

2^ 

193 

251 


I6X 

7X 

129 

710 

1085 


20TH DISTRICT 




























Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 
Stanly 
Union 
TOTAL 


S2 
87 
120 
152 
151 
592 


49 

2^ 

74 

9 

83 
240 


131 

1 12 
194 
161 
234 
832 


25 
15 
33 

14 
31 
lis 


21 
6 

12 


22 

170 


46 
21 

45 

14 

51 
88 


2 

13 
12 
15 
20 
28 



8 
4 
1 
35 
116 


2 
21 
16 
16 

55 
38 




24 
2 

15 
15 
56 


3 

2 
X 

5 
8 


3 

26 

10 

15 
20 

46 


1X2 
1X0 
26S 

206 
362 
710 


21 ST DISTRICT 




























Forsyth 


295 
295 


83 
83 


378 
378 


143 

143 


2 7 
27 


170 
170 


88 


28 
28 


116 
116 


(X 
38 


X 
H 


46 

4b 


710 
710 


22ND DISTRICT 




























Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 
TOTAL 


8 

14X 

27 
1 17 
300 


17 

4 
29 
12(1 


2S 
218 

31 
146 
420 


4 

I 24 

22 

40 

190 


6 
97 

3 

28 
134 


10 

221 

25 

68 

324 


2 
51 

1 
13 

67 




4X 

5 

51 


2 
99 

1 
18 

120 


6 

19 
10 

72 

(07 


9 

9 

1 
9 

28 


15 

2X 

11 

XI 

135 


52 
566 

68 
313 

999 


23RD DISTRICT 




























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 
TOTAL 


6 
9 

147 
18 

210 



20 
28 
13 
61 


6 
29 

175 

61 

271 


4 

2< 

5 2 

21 

100 



4 

21 
S 

JO 


1 

27 

7* 

26 

130 



4 
16 

19 




9 

1 

10 




4 

4^ 

20 

69 




2 
SI 
IX 

77 






16 

7 

23 




2 

73 

2^ 

100 


10 

62 

366 

1 32 

570 


24 TH DISTRICT 




























Avery 
Madison 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 
TOTAL 


12 
7 

10 
1 1 
48 
91 


3 

If) 

3 

\< 

n 


15 

17 
10 

17 
64 

12'. 


4 
1 1 
6 
7 
43 
7! 


10 
9 


2 

7 
2H 


14 
20 
6 
9 
50 
99 


3 
3 
2 
8 

18 
34 


7 
2 

3 
4 
16 


10 
5 
2 
11 
22 
50 


1 

4 
2 
7 

20 
34 


1 





5 
6 


2 
4 
2 
7 

25 
40 


41 
46 
20 
44 
161 
312 



98 



JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS — ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT* 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 





Delin< 


uency Hearing 


5 


Undisciplined Hear 


rigs 


Dependent') Hearings 






Neglect Hearings 




Total 
Hearings 


25 TH DISTRICT 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


• Retained 


llisnusM-d 


lotal 


Retained 


Dismissed 


lotal 


RetaiiK 


d Dismissed 


Total 


Burke 


223 


64 


287 


(.4 


20 


84 


76 


6 


82 


67 


17 


84 


537 


Caldwell 


83 


32 


l 15 


61 


23 


X4 


2S 


4 


29 


15 


5 


20 


248 


Catawba 


1S4 


54 


238 


35 


14 


4') 


4S 


3 


51 


1') 


8 


27 


365 


TOTAL 


490 


150 


640 


160 


57 


217 


149 


13 


162 


101 


30 


131 


1150 



26 TH DISTRICT 



Mecklenburg 



1185 


412 


1597 


227 


70 


297 


2(11 


1185 


412 


1597 


227 


70 


297 


201 



210 
210 



is 

IK 



I') 
19 



2123 
2123 



27TH DISTRICT 

Cleveland 
Gaston 
Lincoln 
TOTAL 



262 


31 


293 


35 


21 


56 


28 


214 


59 


273 


147 


27 


174 


106 


33 


12 


45 


20 


10 


30 


11 


509 


1(12 


611 


202 


58 


260 


145 



3 


il 


1 


117 


3 


14 


7 


162 



20 


o 


7 


2 


o 


s 


27 


7 



20 


400 


9 


S71 


5 


94 


34 


1067 



28TH DISTRICT 
Buncombe 



178 


1 II 


289 


1 12 


176 


2SS 


178 


111 


289 


112 


176 


288 



16 

16 



I ! 
13 



13 

113 



26 

26 



619 
619 



29TH DISTRICT 

Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

TOTAL 



Si 


16 


<)7 


31 


IS 


49 


50 


3 


53 


26 


5 


31 


8 


3 


1 1 


3 


1 


4 


92 


13 


105 


15 


1 


Id 


26 


5 


31 


42 


3 


45 


257 


40 


297 


117 


28 


145 



I 

14 

1 

21 

21 

5K 



5 

14 
2 

21 
24 
66 



2') 


6 


26 


2 


1 





9 


2 


-> 





67 


ill 



35 


1st, 


28 


1 26 


1 


IS 


1 1 


153 


-i 


102 


77 


585 



30TH DISTRICT 

Cherokee 
Clay 
Graham 
Haywood 
Jackson 
Macon 
Swain 
TOTAL 



GRAND TOTAL 



2 

K) 
4 

7 
2 

10 

2 

37 



2 
o 
5 
45 
15 
2 

3 

72 



4 
10 

9 
52 

17 

12 

5 

109 



9180 3774 12,954 



70.9 29.1 



100.0 
56.6 



1 4 

5 

6 32 



3067 1584 



65.9 34.1 



5 
I 

o 
9 

13 
5 
5 

J8 



4651 



100.0 
20.3 



1988 



75.3 





o 
5 
3 


2 

1! 



653 



24.7 



1 


7 





7 


17 


1 


2 





2 


15 





3 


o 


3 


12 


s 


o 


I 


4 


70 


3 


o 


2 


2 


35 








o 





17 


2 





I 


1 


13 


8 3 


12 


7 


19 


179 


2641 


1982 


678 


2660 


22,906 


100.0 


74.5 


25.5 


100.0 




11.5 






11.6 


100.0 



This table indicates the total number of adjudicatory hearings in each category of juvenile jurisdiction during the year. Juvenile petitions may be dismissed either for failure to prove that the child is delin- 
quent, undisciplined, dependent or neglected or. if he is found to be so, because the child is not in need of the care, protection or discipline of the State. All cases dismissed for either of these reasons are 
counted in the "dismissed" column, all other cases are counted in the "retained" column 



99 



DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL DOCKETS 

In the graphs which follow, criminal case activity in the district court division during 1976 is 
compared with criminal case activity in district courts during the preceding four years. There was a 
6.77% decrease in the number of criminal cases filed - 1,045,190 in 1976 as compared with 1,121,028 
in 1975. There was a comparable decrease in the number of criminal case dispositions — 1,037,401 in 
1976 as compared with 1,109,759 in 1975. There was some increase in the total number of pending 
criminal cases at year end, 1 13,108 as of December 31, 1976 compared with 105,319 as of December 
31, 1975. 

Tables are presented which show the distribution of pending criminal cases among the counties, 
the ten counties with the largest number of cases pending at the end of 1976, the ten counties with the 
highest ratios of dispositions to total caseloads, and the ten counties with the lowest ratios of disposi- 
tions to total caseloads. 

Data is then shown, by judicial districts and by counties, on: (1) the number of criminal cases 
pending, filed and disposed of in 1976; (2) ages of criminal cases involving motor vehicle offenses 
pending on December 31, 1976; and (3) ages of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending on Decem- 
ber 31, 1976. 

The decrease in the number of criminal cases filed in the district courts during 1976 as compared 
with the number in 1975 is not regarded as indicative of any long-range downward trend in case fil- 
ings. The overall consistent trend of criminal case filings over the years has been upward, and this is 
expected to continue, in substantial parallel with the expected upward trend in the State's population 
in the years ahead. 

The percentage breakdown for the types of district court criminal cases and the manner of dis- 
positions has remained constant over the years. The pattern was no different in 1976. Of the total 
number of criminal cases filed in the district courts, 64.95% was for violation of the traffic laws. Non- 
motor vehicle cases made up the remaining 35.05%. 

Only 8.89% of the cases disposed of was contested, requiring a trial before a district court judge. 
About one-fourth (25.99%) of the cases was disposed of upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and 
42.85% was disposed of by a waiver of appearance and trial and a written plea of guilty filed with a 
magistrate or the clerk. Preliminary hearings comprised 2.54% of district court criminal case disposi- 
tions, and the remaining 19.70% of the dispositions was by other means, such as dismissal by the dis- 
trict attorney. 

The comment on speedy trial standards found in the section on the superior court criminal 
dockets is also applicable to district court criminal cases. The statutes in question make no 
distinction between criminal cases filed in the superior courts and those filed int he district courts. 

The tables on ages of criminal cases pending in the district courts as of December 3 1 , 1976, show 
that 18.8% of the motor vehicle cases and 25.1% of the non-motor vehicle cases had been pending 
more than six months; and 13.0% of the motor vehicle cases and 16.8% of the non-motor vehicle cases 
had been pending more than a year. One might speculate that by the time the mandatory standards 
under Chapter 787, 1977 Session Laws, become effective on October 1, 1978, there will be some 
significant reduction in the number of criminal cases pending for more than six months. 



101 



CRIMINAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976 



NO Of CASES 



1.200.000 



1. 1 25.000 



.050.000 



975,000 



900.000 



s 25. 000 



750,000 



675,000 



600.000 



525.000 



450.000 



375.000 



300.000 



225,000 



50,000 



- 000 



1,121,028 



1,089,512 



1,066,712 



•1.028.532 1,023.310 



1.000.893 



998,389 



1972 



1973 



1974 
(YEAR) 



1.109.759 



1,045,190 



,037,401 



1475 



1476 



•\DDI I) 



DISPOSED OE: 



02 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

(For Years, 1972-1976) 



NO. OF CASES 



140,000 



1 20,000 




103 



DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES 
AMONG THE COUNTIES 

(District Courts) 



Number of 


Less than 


Cases 


100 


Number of 




Counties & 




Year: 1972 


14 


1973 


II 


1974 


9 


1975 


6 


1976 


6 



101-300 

31 
30 

23 

23 

26 







Over 


1-500 


501-1,000 


1,000 


11 


27 


17 


14 


24 


21 


11 


21 


54 


10 


25 


36 


15 


25 


2X 



TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CRIMINAL DOCKETS 
PENDING AT YEAR END 



County 

*Guilford 

*Mecklenburg 

*Wake 

Durham 

Cumberland 
*Forsyth 
*Gaston 

Onslow 
*New Hanover 

Robeson 
STATE MEAN 
""Counties that were 



Pending 

1/1/76 


Filed 


Disposed of 


Pending 

12/31/76 


Relation (% 
of Disposi- 
tions to 
Filings 


10,529 


82,717 


74,156 


19,090 


89.7 


12,058 


76,021 


78,541 


9,538 


103.3 


8,229 


65,053 


66,300 


6,982 


101.9 


4,973 


29,232 


29,034 


5,171 


99.3 


4,223 


47,080 


46,236 


5,067 


98.2 


3,697 


45,537 


45,765 


3,469 


100.5 


2,796 


27,537 


27,380 


2,953 


99.4 


1,750 


19,848 


19,612 


1,986 


98.8 


2,259 


20,181 


20,529 


1,911 


101.7 


1,530 


19,396 


19,054 


1,872 


98.2 


1,053 


10,452 


10,374 


1,131 


99.3 



isted in this table in the 1975 Annual Report. 



104 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH HIGHEST RATIOS OF DISPOSITIONS 
TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Orange 

Northampton 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

Hyde 

McDowell 

Beaufort 

Yancey 

Iredell 

Chatham 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 

12,053 
4,626 
1,191 
2,463 
1,016 
8,625 
8,615 
1,986 

12,506 
6,787 

11,505 



Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 

to Caseload 


11,628 


96.5 


4,466 


96.5 


1,149 


96.5 


2,354 


95.6 


969 


95.4 


8,187 


94.9 


8,167 


94.8 


1,877 


94.5 


11,805 


94.4 


6,392 


94.2 


10374 


90.2 



THE TEN COUNTIES WITH LOWEST RATIOS OF DISPOSITIONS 
TO TOTAL CASELOAD, 1976 



Guilford 

Madison 

Durham 

Bladen 

Wilkes 

Ashe 

Columbus 

Sampson 

Stanley 

Rockingham 

STATE MEAN 



Total 
Caseload 

93,246 
1,546 

34,205 
8,692 
8,999 
2,549 

12,578 
9,939 
7,575 

14,733 

11,505 



Total 
Dispositions 


% of Dis- 
positions 
to Caseload 


74,156 


79.5 


1,276 


82.5 


29,034 


84.9 


7,499 


86.3 


7,828 


87.0 


2,230 


87.5 


11,055 


87.9 


8,759 


88.1 


6,684 


88.2 


13,060 


88.6 


10,374 


90.2 



105 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OF CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 









Cases Filed. 1976 








Cases Disposed Of, 1976 










Increase/ 


1ST DISTRICT 


Pending 
1 1 76 


Motor 
Vehicle 


Other 
Criminal 


Total Cases 
Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


By Judge 


B> Plea 


By Waiver 


Pielim. 
Hearing 


Otherwise 


Total 
Dispositions 


Pending 
12/31/76 


Decrease 

n Pending 

Cases 


Camden 


156 


1300 


ss 


1388 


1544 


143 


253 


893 


11 


86 


1386 


158 


+ 


2 


Chowan 


246 


1 550 


557 


2107 


2353 


155 


509 


1064 


193 


253 


2174 


179 


- 


67 


Currituck 


1 ! 


1602 


358 


1960 


1971 


102 


557 


889 


71 


174 


1793 


178 


+ 


167 


Dare 


21 19 


2814 


1017 


3831 


4040 


240 


829 


1824 


82 


765 


3740 


300 


+ 


91 


Gates 


49 


1111 


299 


1410 


1459 


90 


248 


935 


4 


96 


1373 


86 


+ 


37 


Pasquotank 


314 


2473 


1232 


3705 


4019 


322 


944 


1712 


76 


684 


3738 


281 


- 


33 


Perquimans 


269 


1326 


272 


1598 


1867 


148 


297 


996 


21 


254 


1716 


151 


- 


lis 


TOTAL 


1254 


12176 


3823 


15999 


17253 


1200 


3637 


8313 


458 


2312 


15920 


1333 


+ 


79 


2. \D DISTRICT 






























Beaufort 


612 


5322 


2681 


8003 


8615 


495 


2232 


3850 


420 


1170 


8167 


448 


- 


164 


Hyde 


3 


565 


448 


1013 


1016 


296 


173 


371 


8 


121 


969 


47 


+ 


44 


Martin 


235 


3622 


1671 


5293 


5528 


552 


1237 


2218 


81 


927 


5015 


513 


+ 


278 


Tyrrell 


67 


948 


176 


1124 


1191 


226 


133 


709 


28 


53 


1149 


42 


- 


25 


Washington 


18 


1509 


936 


2445 


2463 


345 


397 


1311 


32 


269 


2354 


109 


+ 


91 


TOTAL 


935 


11966 


5912 


17878 


18813 


1914 


4172 


8459 


569 


2540 


17654 


1159 


+ 


224 


3RD DISTRICT 






























Carteret 


6X4 


5509 


3336 


8845 


9529 


548 


2788 


3219 


247 


2044 


8846 


683 


- 


1 


Craven 


675 


7719 


4331 


12050 


12725 


1212 


3448 


5140 


549 


1561 


11910 


sis 


+ 


140 


Pamlico 


73 


1384 


605 


1989 


2062 


337 


702 


778 


77 


46 


1940 


122 


+ 


49 


Pitt 


512 


12204 


7232 


19436 


19948 


1237 


5370 


8735 


476 


2463 


18281 


1667 


+ 


1155 



K)| \I 



1944 



26816 



3287 + 1343 



4TH DISTRICT 



Duplin 


3159 


6882 


1758 


8640 


11799 


613 


2009 


5950 


188 


2049 


10809 


990 


- 


2169 


Jones 


106 


1515 


465 


1980 


2086 


S27 


192 


932 


16 


241 


1908 


178 


+ 


72 


Onslow 


1750 


12031 


7817 


19848 


21598 


663 


10183 


3909 


353 


4504 


19612 


1986 


+ 


236 


Sampson 


857 


6329 


2753 


9082 


9939 


497 


2455 


4384 


142 


1281 


8759 


1180 


+ 


323 


TOTAL 


5872 


26757 


12793 


39550 


45422 


2300 


14839 


15175 


699 


8075 


41088 


4334 




1538 


577/ DISTRICT 






























New Hanover 


2259 


11485 


8696 


20181 


22440 


4727 


1354 


8481 


1515 


4452 


20529 


1911 


- 


348 


Pender 


340 


3525 


1122 


4647 


4987 


458 


1202 


1958 


35 


839 


4492 


495 


+ 


155 


TOTAL 


2599 


15010 


9818 


24828 


27427 


5185 


2556 


10439 


1550 


5291 


25021 


2406 




193 


6TH DISTRICT 






























Bertie 


392 


2900 


827 


3727 


4119 


230 


1052 


2068 


S2 


436 


3838 


281 


- 


11 1 


Halifax 


886 


5869 


3906 


9775 


10661 


709 


2749 


3747 


229 


2491 


9925 


736 


— 


150 


Hertford 


319 


3883 


1342 


5225 


5544 


337 


978 


2653 


71 


961 


5000 


544 


4 


225 


Northampton 


101 


3632 


893 


4525 


4626 


206 


1350 


2105 


53 


752 


4466 


160 


+ 


59 


TOTAL 


1698 


16284 


6968 


23252 


24950 


1482 


6129 


10573 


405 


4640 


23229 


1721 


+ 


23 


777/ DISTRICT 






























Edgecombe 


897 


6350 


4462 


10812 


11709 


939 


3402 


4727 


289 


1643 


11000 


709 


- 


ISS 


Nash 


1040 


7208 


4727 


11935 


12975 


84 S 


3754 


4903 


331 


2186 


12017 


958 


— 


82 


Wilson 


225 


5914 


4002 


99 1 6 


10141 


643 


2014 


4520 


297 


1782 


9256 


885 


+ 


660 


IOI \l 


2162 


19472 


13191 


32663 


34825 


2425 


9170 


14150 


917 


5611 


32273 


2552 


+ 


390 



106 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OF CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 







1 


rases Filed, 1976 








Cases Disposed Of, 1976 








Increase/ 


8TH DISTRICT 


Pending 

1/1/76 


Motor 
Vehicle 


Other 
Criminal 


Total Cases 
Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


By Judge 


By Plea 


By Waiver 


Prelim. 
Hearing 


Otherwise 


Total 
Dispositions 


Decrease 
Pending in Pending 
12/31/76 Cases 


Greene 


111 


1916 


894 


2810 


3087 


149 


803 


1320 


89 


504 


2865 


222 


- 55 


Lenoir 


902 


7339 


5388 


12727 


13629 


1146 


4142 


4553 


354 


2366 


12561 


1068 


+ 166 


Wayne 


157 


8342 


4656 


12998 


13155 


753 


3552 


5184 


188 


2167 


11844 


1311 


+ 1154 


TOTAL 


1336 


17597 


10938 


28535 


29871 


2048 


8497 


11057 


631 


5037 


27270 


2601 


+ 1265 


9TH DISTRICT 




























Franklin 


1354 


4586 


1049 


5635 


6989 


498 


1865 


3148 


42 


852 


6405 


584 


- 770 


Granville 


476 


4587 


1544 


6131 


6607 


360 


1601 


3315 


106 


742 


6124 


483 


+ 7 


Person 


319 


2954 


1479 


4433 


4752 


349 


1235 


1948 


146 


592 


4320 


432 


+ 113 


Vance 


516 


3494 


2680 


6174 


6690 


1341 


1049 


2548 


283 


1036 


6257 


433 


- 83 


Warren 


109 


1410 


1163 


2573 


2682 


199 


447 


1110 


188 


502 


2446 


236 


+ 127 


TOTAL 


2774 


17031 


7915 


24946 


27720 


2747 


6197 


12069 


815 


3724 


25552 


2168 


- 606 


10TH DISTRICT 




























Wake 


8229 


41976 


23077 


65053 


73282 


3807 


18594 


26046 


507 


17346 


66300 


6982 


-1247 


TOTAL 


8229 


41976 


23077 


65053 


73282 


3807 


18594 


26046 


507 


17346 


66300 


6982 


-1247 


1ITH DISTRICT 




























Harnett 


890 


6316 


3779 


10095 


10985 


348 


3758 


3790 


105 


2141 


10142 


843 


- 47 


Johnston 


1622 


7876 


4196 


12072 


13694 


2168 


3750 


4454 


214 


1842 


12428 


1266 


- 356 


Lee 


516 


3366 


3507 


6873 


7389 


467 


1723 


3147 


1X6 


1280 


6803 


586 


+ 70 


TOTAL 


3028 


17558 


11482 


29040 


32068 


2983 


9231 


11391 


505 


5263 


29373 


2695 


- 333 


I2TH DISTRICT 




























Cumberland 


4223 


27758 


19322 


47080 


51303 


3797 


10641 


17954 


758 


13086 


46236 


5067 


+ 844 


Hoke 


497 


3054 


876 


3930 


4427 


165 


978 


2249 


101 


590 


4083 


344 


- 153 


TOTAL 


4720 


30812 


20198 


51010 


55730 


3962 


11619 


20203 


859 


13676 


50319 


5411 


+ 691 


I3TH DISTRICT 




























Bladen 


383 


6016 


2293 


8309 


8692 


676 


2672 


3653 


1 17 


381 


7499 


1193 


+ 810 


Brunswick 


31 


2960 


2322 


5282 


5313 


832 


689 


2019 


109 


1129 


4778 


535 


+ 504 


Columbus 


1371 


6216 


4991 


11207 


12578 


1506 


2752 


4724 


171 


1902 


11055 


1523 


+ 152 


TOTAL 


1785 


15192 


24798 


26583 


3014 


6113 


103% 


397 


3412 


23332 


3251 + 


1466 




14TH DISTRICT 




























Durham 


4973 


19487 


9745 


29232 


34205 


1934 


10460 


1 1043 


813 


4784 


29034 


5171 


+ 198 


TOTAL 


4973 


19487 


9745 


29232 


34205 


1934 


10460 


1 1043 


813 


4784 


29034 


5171 


+ 198 


I5TH DISTRICT 




























Alamance 


690 


12230 


4956 


17186 


17876 


823 


4236 


7751 


448 


3143 


16401 


1475 


+ 785 


Chatham 


503 


5077 


1207 


6284 


6787 


875 


1752 


2992 


94 


679 


6392 


395 


- 108 


Orange 


1918 


7096 


3039 


10135 


12053 


1289 


2738 


5406 


405 


1790 


11628 


425 


-1493 


TOTAL 


3111 


24403 


9202 


33605 


36716 


2987 


8726 


16149 


947 


5612 


34421 


2295 


- 816 


16TH DISTRICT 




























Robeson 


1530 


12068 


7328 


19396 


20926 


1133 


7031 


6824 


722 


3344 


19054 


1872 


+ 342 


Scotland 


1087 


5765 


2127 


7892 


8979 


648 


2092 


3834 


178 


1542 


8294 


685 


- 402 


TOTAL 


2617 


17833 


9455 


27288 


29905 


1781 


9123 


10658 


900 


4886 


27348 


2557 


- 60 



.07 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OF CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January I, 1976 — December 31, 1976 







c 


ases Filed, 1976 








( 


ases Disposed Of, 1976 








Increase/ 


l'TH DISTRICT 


Pending 
1 1 76 


Molor 
V ehicle 


Other 
Criminal 


Total Cases 
Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


By Judge 


By Plea 


By Waiver 


Prelim. 
Hearing 


Otherwise 


Total 
>ispositions 


Pending 
12/31/76 


Decrease 

in Pending 

Cases 


Caswell 


182 


2233 


594 


2827 


3009 


195 


449 


1357 


86 


589 


2676 


333 


+ 151 


Rockingham 


1688 


8883 


4162 


1 3045 


14733 


1417 


3044 


5154 


949 


2496 


13060 


1673 


- 15 


Suikc- 


359 


3383 


966 


4349 


4708 


747 


907 


1953 


73 


587 


4267 


441 


+ 82 


Surr\ 


506 


6496 


2233 


8729 


9235 


1401 


2076 


3468 


220 


1156 


8321 


914 


+ 408 


TOTA L 


2735 


20995 


7955 


28950 


31685 


3760 


6476 


11932 


1328 


4828 


28324 


3361 


+ 626 


1STH DISTRICT 




























Guilford 




























Greensboro 


6145 


46041 


19503 


65544 


71689 


3622 


18762 


26653 


678 


9356 


59071 


12618 


+ 6473 


High Point 


4384 


10040 


7133 


17173 


21557 


902 


4651 


6545 


372 


2615 


15085 


6472 


+ 2088 


TOTAL 


10,529 


56,081 


26,636 


82,717 


93,246 


4524 


23,413 


33,198 


1050 


11971 


74156 


19090 


+ 8561 


IVTH DISTRICT 




























Cabarrus 


278 


11663 


4018 


15681 


15959 


1499 


2813 


8630 


184 


1473 


14799 


1160 


+ 882 


Montgomer> 


885 


3097 


2685 


5782 


6667 


381 


942 


3243 


309 


1373 


6248 


419 


- 466 


Randolph 


1266 


10149 


3246 


13395 


14661 


1040 


2684 


7653 


266 


1699 


13342 


1319 


+ 53 


Rowan 


898 


11713 


3936 


15649 


16547 


1490 


3046 


7661 


433 


2568 


15198 


1 349 - 


+ 451 


TOTAL 


3327 


36622 


13885 


50507 


53834 


4410 


9485 


7187 


1392 


7113 


49587 


4247 


+ 920 


20TH DISTRICT 




























Anson 


434 


3446 


2028 


5474 


5908 


359 


1147 


2916 


162 


861 


5445 


463 


+ 29 


Moore 


729 


4550 


2946 


7496 


8225 


441 


1935 


3319 


298 


1542 


7585 


640 


- 89 


Richmond 


1125 


5619 


2455 


8074 


9199 


912 


1737 


3541 


311 


1970 


8471 


728 


- 397 


Stanly 


580 


4569 


2426 


6995 


7575 


198 


2316 


2943 


240 


987 


6684 


891 


+ 311 


L'nion 


573 


5626 


2618 


8244 


8817 


577 


2339 


3687 


198 


1351 


8152 


665 


+ 92 


TOTAL 


3441 


23810 


12473 


36283 


39724 


2537 


9474 


16406 


1209 


6711 


36337 


3387 


- 54 


2 1ST DISTRICT 




























Forsvth 


3697 


32046 


13491 


45537 


49234 


4677 


9205 


23975 


956 


6952 


45765 


3469 


- 228 


TOTAL 


3697 


32046 


13491 


45537 


49234 


4677 


9205 


23975 


956 


6952 


45765 


3469 


- 228 


22 SD DISTRICT 




























Alexander 


59 


1684 


937 


2621 


2680 


139 


423 


1294 


244 


332 


2432 


248 


+ 189 


Davidson 


1126 


11190 


4346 


15536 


16662 


1833 


2407 


8126 


245 


2689 


15300 


1362 


+ 236 


Davie 


272 


3638 


609 


4247 


4519 


309 


651 


2708 


64 


528 


4260 


259 


- 13 


Iredell 


916 


8095 


3495 


11590 


12506 


866 


2902 


5096 


236 


2705 


11805 


701 


- 215 


TOTAL 


2373 


24607 


9387 


33994 


36367 


3147 


-6383 


17224 


789 


6254 


33797 


2570 


+ 197 


2 3RD DISTRICT 




























Alleghany 


31 


495 


352 


847 


878 


18(1 


257 


291 


25 


58 


811 


67 


+ 36 


Ashe 


148 


1584 


817 


2401 


2549 


242 


623 


1004 


64 


297 


2230 


319 


+ 171 


Wilkes 


m 


5280 


2958 


8238 


8999 


1027 


1597 


3334 


177 


1693 


7828 


1171 


+ 410 


Yadkin 


205 


2771 


1016 


3787 


3992 


569 


738 


2012 


127 


253 


3699 


293 


+ 88 


TOTAL 


1145 


10130 


5143 


15273 


16418 


2018 


3215 


6641 


393 


2301 


14568 


1850 


+ 705 


24TH DISTRICT 




























Avery 


188 


1325 


1033 


2358 


2546 


330 


166 


1097 


49 


460 


2302 


244 


+ 56 


Madison 


246 


896 


404 


1 300 


1546 


126 


1 17 


587 


33 


41 ! 


1276 


270 


+ 24 


Mitchell 


160 


947 


376 


1323 


1483 


187 


43 


813 


5 


73 


1321 


162 


+ 2 


Watauga 


'.7 1 


2992 


876 


3868 


4239 


342 


648 


2126 


II? 


541 


3769 


470 


+ 99 


Yancey 


45 


1373 


568 


1941 


1986 


128 


298 


1123 


21 


307 


1877 


109 


+ 64 


Mil M 


1010 


7533 


3257 


10790 


11800 


1313 


1472 


5746 


220 


1794 


10545 


1255 


+ 245 



108 



CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
BY TYPE OF CASE AND MANNER OF DISPOSITION 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 







Cases Filed, 1976 










Cases Disposed Of, 1976 








Increase/ 




























Decrease 


25TH DISTRICT 


Pending 

1/1/76 


Motor 
Vehicle 


Other Total Cases 
Criminal Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


By Judge 


By Plea 


By Waiver 


Prelim. 
Hearing 


Otherwise 


Total 
Dispositions 


Pending 

12/31/76 


in Pending 
Cases 


Burke 


939 


7649 


3309 


10958 


11897 


3036 


1139 


4561 


141 


2152 


11029 


868 


- 71 


Caldwell 


1243 


5632 


3804 


9436 


10679 


1015 


2452 


3591 


398 


2183 


9639 


1040 


- 203 


Catawba 


1365 


8678 


7826 


16504 


17869 


975 


6140 


5440 


744 


3000 


16299 


1570 


+ 205 


TOTAL 


3547 


2159 


14939 


36898 


40445 


5026 


9731 


13592 


1283 


7335 


36967 


3478 


- 69 


26TH DISTRICT 




























Mecklenburg 


1 2058 


41775 


34246 


76021 


88079 


3056 


16131 


30850 


1596 


26908 


78541 


9538 


-2520 


TOTAL 


12058 


41775 


34246 


76021 


88079 


3056 


16131 


30850 


15% 


26908 


78541 


9538 


-2520 


27TH DISTRICT 




























Cleveland 


732 


8128 


5255 


13383 


14115 


3219 


3372 


5056 


131 


926 


12704 


1411 


+ 679 


Gaston 


2796 


14714 


12823 


27537 


30333 


1641 


9560 


7855 


955 


7369 


27380 


2953 


+ 157 


Lincoln 


467 


3315 


1779 


5094 


5561 


234 


1575 


1604 


213 


1429 


5055 


506 


+ 39 


TOTAL 


3995 


26157 


19857 


46014 


50009 


5094 


14507 


14515 


1299 


9724 


45139 


4870 


+ 875 


28TH DISTRICT 




























Buncombe 


2262 


15325 


10042 


25367 


27629 


1281 


9258 


7850 


1402 


6110 


25901 


1728 


- 534 


TOTAL 


2262 


15325 


10042 


25367 


27629 


1281 


9258 


7850 


1402 


6110 


25901 


1728 


- 534 


29TH DISTRICT 




























Henderson 


399 


5601 


2738 


8339 


8738 


1247 


1695 


3262 


207 


1434 


7845 


893 


+ 494 


McDowell 


2312 


4650 


1663 


6313 


8625 


848 


1414 


4066 


229 


1630 


8187 


438 


-1874 


Polk 


610 


1689 


858 


2547 


3157 


380 


415 


1329 


54 


745 


2923 


234 


- 376 


Rutherford 


503 


3838 


3241 


7079 


7582 


1459 


1761 


2565 


233 


955 


6973 


609 


+ 106 


Transylvania 


249 


2230 


1098 


3328 


3577 


436 


803 


1616 


57 


375 


3287 


290 


+ 41 


TOTAL 


4073 


18008 


9598 


27606 


31679 


4370 


6088 


12838 


780 


5139 


29215 


2464 


-1609 


30TH DISTRICT 




























Cherokee 


37 


1929 


626 


2555 


2592 


661 


133 


1244 


1 


328 


2367 


225 


+ 188 


Clay 


43 


834 


111 


945 


988 


234 


790 


574 





7 


894 


94 


+ 51 


Graham 


110 


605 


311 


916 


1026 


350 


90 


486 


1 


25 


952 


74 


- 36 


Haywood 


777 


4049 


2124 


6173 


6950 


1363 


1844 


1966 


156 


869 


6198 


752 


- 25 


Jackson 


339 


2100 


1029 


3129 


3468 


447 


615 


1345 


57 


764 


3228 


240 


- 99 


Macon 


663 


2439 


586 


3025 


3688 


587 


350 


1925 


22 


566 


3450 


238 


- 425 


Swain 


121 


1481 


1012 


2493 


2614 


278 


322 


1026 


93 


640 


2359 


255 


+ 134 


TOTAL 


2090 


13437 


5799 


19236 


21326 


3920 


3433 


8566 


330 


3199 


19448 


1878 


- 212 



GRANDTOTAL 105319 678,855 366335 1,045,190 1,150,509 92,236 269,642 444,513 26348 204,662 1,037,401113,108 +7789 



109 



AGES OF MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 





Tolal 


t ess than 


.10-60 


61-W 


•M-1H0 


INI Days 


1 Year 


2 Years 


3 Years 


4 Years Greater 


1ST DISTRICT 


Pending 


30 Days 


Days 


Days 


Days 


To 1 Year 


To 2 Y ears 


To 3 Years 


To 4 Years 


To 5 Years Than 5 Years 


Camden 


151 


62 


->-> 


10 


6 


26 


24 


i 






Percentage of Total 




41.1 


14.6 


6.6 


40 


17.2 


15.9 


0.7 






Chowan 


117 


80 


20 


6 


7 


1 






1 


2 


Percentage of Total 




68.4 


17.1 


5 1 


6.0 


0.9 






0.9 


1.7 


Currituck 


128 


69 


29 


5 


9 


14 


2 








Percentage of Total 




53.9 


22.7 


3.9 


7.0 


10.9 


1.6 








Dare 


188 


78 


44 


16 


27 


9 


9 


3 


2 




Percentage of Total 




41.5 


23.4 


x 5 


14.4 


4X 


4.8 


1.6 


1 1 




Gates 


69 


38 


7 


1 


6 


9 


7 


1 






Percentage of Total 




55.1 


10.1 


1 4 


X 7 


13.0 


10.1 


1 4 






Pasquotank 


193 


117 


29 


13 


13 


15 


6 








Percentage of Totai 




60.6 


15.0 


6.7 


6.7 


7 X 


3.1 








Perquimans 


105 


52 


20 


9 


10 


5 


5 






4 


Percentage of Total 




49.5 


19.0 


8.6 


9 5 


4 8 


4 X 






IX 


District Totals 


951 


496 


171 


60 


78 


79 


53 


5 


3 


6 


Percentage of Total 




52.2 


18.0 


6.3 


8.2 


8.3 


5.6 


0.5 


0.3 


0.6 


2ND DISTRICT 






















Beaufort 


320 


205 


27 


22 


41 


8 


12 


5 






Percentage of Total 




64.1 


8.4 


6.9 


12.8 


2 5 


IX 


1 6 






Hyde 


2 2 


7 


5 


4 


4 


2 










Percentage of Total 




31.8 


22.7 


18.2 


18.2 


9.1 










Martin 


398 


289 


46 


20 


35 


8 










Percentage of Total 




72.6 


11.6 


so 


8 x 


2.0 










Tyrrell 


21 


11 


2 


4 


4 












Percentage of Total 




52.4 


9.5 


19.0 


19.0 












Washington 


87 


65 


7 


1 


9 


5 










Percentage of Total 




74.7 


8.0 


1.1 


10.3 


5.7 










District Totals 


848 


577 


87 


51 


93 


23 


12 


5 






Percentage of Total 




68.0 


10.3 


6.(1 


11.0 


2.7 


14 


0.6 






3RD DISTRICT 






















Carteret 


417 


196 


70 


29 


25 


57 


33 


5 


1 


1 


Percentage of Total 




47.0 


16.8 


7.0 


6.0 


13.7 


7.9 


1.2 


o 2 


0.2 


Craven 


542 


286 


64 


17 


61 


56 


35 


3 






Percentage of Total 




52.8 


11.8 


6.8 


11.3 


10.3 


(, 5 


0.6 






Pamlico 


7X 


44 


16 


8 


4 


3 


2 


1 






Percentage of Total 




56.4 


20.5 


10.3 


5.1 


3.8 


2 6 


1.3 






Pitt 


1,199 


692 


287 


106 


93 


16 


5 








Percentage of Total 




57.7 


23.9 


XX 


7X 


1.3 


0.4 








District Totals 


2,236 


1,218 


437 


IKII 


183 


112 


75 


9 


1 


1 


Percentage of Total 




54.5 


19.5 


8.1 


8.2 


5.9 


3.4 


0.4 






4TH DISTRICT 






















Duplin 


842 


399 


167 


42 


62 


63 


73 


32 


i 


i 


Percentage of Total 




47.4 


19.8 


5.0 


7.4 


7.5 


8.7 


3.8 


0.2 


0.2 


Jones 


82 


37 


16 


24 


s 












Percentage ol I otal 




45.1 


19.5 


29.3 


6.1 












Onslow 


1.240 


519 


339 


145 


189 


46 


2 








Percentage of Total 




41.9 


27.3 


1 1.7 


15.2 


3.7 


0.2 








-on 


832 


377 


147 


69 


87 


104 


44 


4 






Percentage "1 rotal 




45.3 


17 7 


8.3 


10.5 


12.5 


5.3 


0.5 






District Totals 


2,996 


1 332 


669 


28(1 


343 


213 


II') 


36 


2 


2 


Percentage of I otal 




44.5 


22.3 


9.3 


11.4 


7 1 


4.0 


1.2 


0.1 


0.1 



AGES OF MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



5TH DISTRICT 



Total 
Pending 



Less than 
30 Days 



30-60 

Davs 



61-90 
Days 



3 Years 



4 Years 



Greater 



11-180 181 Days I Year 2 Years 

Days To I Year To 2 Years To 3 Years To 4 Years To 5 Years Than 5 Years 



New Hanover 


974 


472 


148 


X4 


91 


98 


26 


54 






1 


Percentage of Total 




48.5 


15.2 


8.6 


<> .3 


10.1 


2.7 


5.5 






i) i 


Pender 


409 


252 


55 


25 


31 


28 


12 


6 








Percentage of Total 




61.6 


13.4 


6 1 


7.6 


(, X 


2') 


1 5 








District Totals 


1383 


724 


203 


109 


122 


126 


38 


60 






1 


Percentage of Total 




52.3 


14.7 


7.9 


8.8 


9.1 


2.7 


4.3 






0.1 


6TH DISTRICT 
























Bertie 


228 


170 


41 


9 


8 














Percentage of Total 




74.6 


18.0 


3.9 


3.5 














Halifax 


459 


312 


98 


22 


13 


14 












Percentage of Total 




68.0 


21.4 


4.8 


2.8 


1 1 












Hertford 


435 


185 


91 


23 


36 


58 


21 


9 


3 


3 


6 


Percentage of Total 




42.5 


20.9 


5.3 


8 3 


13.3 


4 X 


2.1 


0.7 


7 


1 4 


Northampton 


I 12 


9 


43 


39 


19 


2 












Percentage of Total 




8.0 


38.4 


34.8 


17.0 


: x 












District Totals 


1,234 


676 


273 


93 


76 


74 


21 


9 


3 


3 


6 


Percentage of Total 




54.8 


22.1 


7.5 


6.2 


6.0 


1.7 


0.7 


0.2 


0.2 


0.5 


7TH DISTRICT 
























Edgecombe 


443 


268 


102 


2X 


31 


6 


7 


1 








Percentage of Total 




60.5 


23.0 


6.3 


7 


1.4 


1.6 


0.2 








Nash 


598 


343 


123 


69 


48 


10 


4 


1 








Percentage of Total 




57.4 


20.6 


11.5 


8.0 


1 7 


7 


2 






* 


Wilson 


561 


351 


86 


69 


4S 


8 


1 








1 


Percentage of Total 




62.6 


15.3 


12.3 


XI) 


14 


2 








2 


District Totals 


1,602 


962 


311 


166 


8 24 


24 


12 


2 






1 


Percentage of Total 




60.0 


19.4 


10.4 


7.7 


1.5 


0.7 


0,1 






0.1 


8TH DISTRICT 
























Greene 


159 


85 


24 


20 


19 


11 












Percentage of Total 




53.5 


15.1 


12.6 


11.9 


6.9 












Lenoir 


659 


302 


156 


79 


87 


32 


3 










Percentage of Total 




45.8 


23.7 


12.0 


13.2 


4') 


0.5 










Wayne 


840 


458 


128 


135 


99 


17 


3 










Percentage of Total 




54.5 


15.2 


16.1 


11.8 


2.0 


0.4 










District Totals 


1,658 


845 


308 


234 


205 


60 


6 










Percentage of Total 




51.0 


18.6 


14.1 


12.4 


3,6 


ft.. 4 










977/ DISTRICT 

























Franklin 

Percentage of Total 
Granville 

Percentage of Total 
Person 

Percentage of Total 
Vance 

Percentage of Total 
Warren 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



482 


208 


123 


47 


43 


41 


19 


1 




43.2 


25.5 


9.8 


X') 


8.5 


3.9 


0.2 


307 


182 


53 


32 


17 


1 1 


5 


4 




59.3 


17.3 


10.4 


5.5 


3.6 


1 6 


1.3 


298 


134 


49 


25 


35 


15 


40 






45.0 


16.4 


8.4 


11.7 


5.0 


13.4 




243 


141 


42 


29 


21 


4 


6 






58.0 


17.3 


11.9 


8.6 


1 6 


2.5 




86 


46 


14 


6 


7 


7 


5 


1 




53.5 


16.3 


7.0 


8 1 


8.1 


5 x 


l 2 


.416 


711 


281 


139 


123 


7S 


75 


6 




50.2 


19.8 


9.S 


8.7 


5.5 


5.3 


0.4 



2 
0.7 



1 
0.3 



2 
l 



I 
0.1 



11 



AGES OF MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



I0TH DISTRICT 


local 
Pending 


1 i-ss than 
30 Days 


30-60 
Days 


61-vN) 
Days 


CI-180 
Days 


181 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To 3 Years 


3 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To 5 Years 


(ireater 
Than 5 Years 


Wake 

Percentage of Total 


4,978 


2,530 
50.8 


1,401 

28.1 


539 
10.8 


421 

s 5 


75 
1.5 


6 

1 


5 

1 






1 


District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


4978 


2,530 
50.8 


1.401 

28.1 


539 
10.8 


421 

8.5 


75 
1.5 


6 
0.1 


5 
0.1 






I 


IITH DISTRICT 
























Harnett 

Percentage of Total 


558 


324 
58.1 


114 
20.4 


63 
11.3 


4X 
S6 


5 
0.9 


4 

7 










Johnston 

Percentage of Total 


807 


437 
54.2 


177 
21.9 


93 
11.5 


66 

8 2 


12 
1.5 


4 

(1 5 


5 

6 




6 
0.7 


7 

9 


Lee 

Percentage of Total 


299 


119 
39.8 


77 
25.8 


13 
4.3 


58 
19.4 


24 
8.0 


4 
1.3 


4 
1.3 








District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


1,664 


880 
52.9 


368 
22.1 


169 
10.2 


172 
10.3 


41 

2.5 


12 

0.7 


9 
0.5 




6 
0.4 


7 
0.4 


I2TH DISTRICT 
























Cumberland 

Percentage of Total 


3,347 


1,867 

55.8 


740 
22.1 


361 
10.8 


339 
10.1 


<X 

1 1 


-> 
1 










Hoke 

Percentage of Total 


233 


144 
61.8 


47 
20.2 


37 
15.9 


1 

114 


3 
1.3 


1 

4 










District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


3.580 


2,011 

56.2 


787 
22.0 


398 
11.1 


340 

9.5 


41 
1.1 


3 
0.1 










I3TH DISTRICT 
























Bladen 

Percentage of Total 


808' 


327 
40.5 


117 
14.5 


41 
5.3 


90 
III 


108 

13.4 


82 
10.1 


29 
1 6 


1 1 

1.4 




1 
0.1 


Brunsuick 

Percentage of Total 


309 


122 
39.5 


68 
22.0 


69 

22.3 


43 
13.9 


7 
2.3 












( olumbus 

Percentage of Total 


X47 


338 
39.9 


134 
15.8 


98 
11.6 


114 
13.5 


117 
13.8 


46 

5.4 










District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


1.964 


787 
40.1 


319 
16.2 


210 
10.7 


247 
12.6 


232 
11.8 


128 
65 


29 
1.5 


11 

0.6 




1 
0.1 


NTH DISTRICT 
























Durham 

Percentage of Total 


3.761 


924 
24.6 


252 
6.7 


120 
3.2 


121 
3.2 


70 

I 9 


402 
10.7 


351 
9.3 


273 
7.3 


200 
5.3 


1,048 
27.9 


District Totals 

Percentage of Total 


3.761 


924 
24.6 


252 

6.7 


120 

3.2 


121 

C2 


70 
1.9 


402 
10.7 


351 
9.3 


273 

7.3 


200 

5.3 


1,048 

27.9 


I5TH DISTRICT 
























Alamance 

Percentage of Total 


1 ,03 1 


646 
62.7 


185 
17.9 


72 
7.0 


68 
6.6 


44 
4.3 


1 ! 
1.3 


1 

I 




1 

I 


1 

I 


Chatham 

Percentage ol 1 otal 


319 


201 
63.0 


51 
16.0 


23 

7.2 


31 
9.7 


9 

2.8 


4 
1.3 










Orange 

Percentage ol Total 


305 


21 

6.9 


95 
31 1 


45 
14.8 


77 
25.2 


51 
16.7 


14 
4 6 


0.7 








District lotals 

Percentage of I otal 


1,655 


868 
52.4 


.331 

20.0 


140 
8 5 


176 
10.6 


104 

6.3 


51 
1.9 


3 

0.2 




1 
0.1 


l 
0.1 



I 12 



AGES OF MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



16TH DISTRICT 



Total 
Pending 



Less than 
30 Days 



30-60 
Days 



61-90 
Days 



91-180 181 Days I Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Greater 

Days To I Year To 2 Years To 3 Years To 4 Years To 5 Years Than 5 Years 



Robeson 


1,044 


616 


200 


105 


115 


5 


3 










Percentage of Total 




59.0 


19.2 


10.1 


11.0 


o 5 


(I 3 










Scotland 


472 


350 


39 


28 


41 


12 


2 










Percentage of Total 




74.2 


8.3 


44 


10.2 


2.5 


0.4 










District Totals 


1316 


966 


239 


126 


163 


17 


5 










Percentage of Total 




63.7 


15.8 


83 


10.8 


1.1 


0.3 










17TH DISTRICT 
























Caswell 


236 


103 


80 


23 


24 


4 


2 










Percentage of Total 




43.6 


33.9 


9.7 


10.2 


1.7 


0.8 










Rockingham 


950 


383 


247 


111 


132 


66 


11 










Percentage of Total 




40.3 


26.0 


11.7 


13.9 


6.9 


1.2 










Stokes 


295 


179 


58 


22 


32 


4 












Percentage of Total 




60.7 


19.7 


7.5 


10.8 


1.4 












Surry 


527 


275 


105 


65 


56 


23 


2 




l 






Percentage of Total 




52.2 


19.9 


12.3 


10.6 


44 


0.4 




o 2 






District Totals 


2,008 


940 


490 


221 


244 


97 


15 




ii 






Percentage of Total 




46.8 


24.4 


11.0 


12.2 


4.8 


0.7 










18TH DISTRICT 
























Guilford 


8,042 


1,995 


895 


S22 


644 


1,007 


1,767 


1,066 


99 


42 


5 


Percentage of Total 




24.8 


11.1 


6.5 


8.0 


12.5 


22.0 


13.3 


1.2 


0.5 


o 1 


High Point 


4,196 


645 


433 


262 


256 


372 


763 


595 


415 


202 


253 


Percentage of Total 




15.4 


10.3 


62 


6.1 


8.9 


18.2 


14.2 


9.9 


4.8 


6.0 


District Totals 


12,238 


2,640 


1328 


784 


900 


U79 


2,530 


1,661 


514 


244 


258 


Percentage of Total 




21.6 


10.9 


6.4 


7.4 


11.3 


20.7 


13.6 


4.2 


2.0 


2.1 


19TH DISTRICT 
























Cabarrus 


929 


525 


220 


90 


64 


24 


6 










Percentage of Total 




56.5 


23.7 


9.7 


6 4 


2.6 


6 










Montgomery 


37 


11 


18 


7 


1 














Percentage of Total 




29.7 


48.6 


18.9 


2.7 














Randolph 


953 


455 


186 


93 


104 


72 


19 


8 


5 


7 


4 


Percentage of Total 




47.7 


19.5 


9.8 


10.9 


7.6 


2 


ox 


0.5- 


7 


0.4 


Rowan 


1,000 


616 


188 


92 


68 


21 


9 


1 


y 


1 


2 


Percentage of Total 




61.6 


18.8 


9.2 


6.8 


2.1 


0.9 


1 


0.2 


1 


o 2 


District Totals 


2,919 


1,607 


612 


282 


237 


117 


34 


9 


7 


8 


6 


Percentage of Total 




55.1 


21.0 


9.7 


8.1 


4.0 


1.2 


0.3 


0.2 


0.3 


(1.2 


20TH DISTRICT 

























Anson 

Percentage of Total 
Moore 

Percentage of Total 
Richmond 

Percentage of Total 
Stanly 

Percentage of Total 
Union 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



295 


177 


60 


16 


28 


13 


1 












60.0 


20.3 


5.4 


9.5 


4.4 


0.3 










369 


169 


87 


2X 


52 


17 


16 












45.8 


23.6 


7.6 


14.1 


4.6 


4.3 










528 


261 


138 


41 


42 


5 


1 


27 


2 


7 


-> 




49.4 


26.1 


X 1 


8.0 


0.9 


0.2 


5.1 


0.4 


l 3 


04 


588 


285 


73 


52 


12 


15 


42 


23 


16 


l 1 


59 




48.5 


12.4 


8.8 


20 


2.6 


7.1 


3.9 


2 7 


1.9 


10.0 


400 


239 


61 


25 


24 


16 


16 


12 


6 


1 






59.8 


15.3 


6.3 


6.0 


4.0 


4.0 


3.0 


l 5 


0.3 




2,180 


1,131 


419 


164 


158 


66 


76 


62 


24 


IV 


61 




51.9 


19.2 


7.5 


7.2 


3.0 


3.5 


2.8 


1.1 


o.v 


2.8 



13 



AGES OF MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASKS PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COl RTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



2 1ST DISTRICT 

Forswh 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



rolal 


[ evs than 


.111-011 


61-9(1 


sM-IHII 


IN 1 l)a' 


Pending 


Ml Days 


Days 


Days 


l)a>s 


ro 1 Ye 


2.564 


1.525 


367 


116 


204 


350 




59.5 


14.3 


4.5 


8.0 


13.7 


2.564 


1.525 


367 


116 


2(14 


35(1 




5*). 5 


14.3 


4.5 


8.0 


13.7 



I Year 2 \ cars 3 Years 4 Years t.reater 

o 2 Years to 1 Years lo 4 Years fo 5 Years than 5 Wars 



22.XD DISTRICT 



Uexander 


183 


142 


30 


2 


6 


3 








Percentage of Total 




77.6 


16.4 


i.i 


3.3 


1.6 








Das idson 


958 


576 


243 


63 


53 


16 


S 


"> 




Percentage of Total 




60.1 


25.4 


6.6 


5.5 


1.7 


0.5 


0.2 




1 ' £ 


192 


135 


41 


8 


6 


1 


1 






Percentage of Total 




70.3 


21.4 


4 - 1 


3.1 


0.5 


0.5 






Iredell 


506 


361 


76 


35 


19 


15 








Percentage of Total 




71.3 


15.0 


6.9 


3.8 


3.0 








District lotals 


1 .8.39 


1.214 


39(1 


HIS 


K4 


*5 


c 


2 




Percentage of Total 




66.0 


21.2 


5.9 


4.6 


1.9 


0.3 


0.1 




23RD DISTRICT 




















Alleghanx 


35 


1 ~1 


9 


4 












Percentage of Total 




62.9 


25.7 


1 1.4 












Vhe 


185 


HI 


36 


3 


21 


8 


13 


IX 


5 


Percentage of Total 




43.8 


19.5 


1 6 


11.4 it. 4 


4.3 


7.0 


9.7 


2.7 


Wilkes 


7^2 


243 


89 


52 


63 


48 


133 


104 




Percentage of Total 




33.2 


12.2 


7 1 


8.6 


6.6 


18.2 


14.2 




"> a d k i n 


231 


155 


41 


10 


12 


10 


3 






Percentage ol Total 




67.1 


17.7 


I 1 


5 2 


4.3 


1 3 






District lotals 


1,183 


501 


175 


69 


96 


66 


149 


122 


5 


Percentage of Total 




42.3 


14.8 


5.8 


N.I 


5.6 


12.6 


10.3 


0.4 



24111 DISTRICT 

\\er\ 

Percentage of Total 
' I 

Percentage of Total 
Mitchell 

Percentage ol I otal 
'■ 

Percentage of Total 
■ 

Percentage of Ti ital 
District lotals 

Percentage of I otal 



91 


4 7 


24 




51.6 


26.4 


130 


37 


31 




28 5 


23.8 


1 1 3 


60 


29 




53.1 


25.7 


S30 


1 II 


51 




33.6 


15.5 


91 


65 


12 




714 


13.2 


755 


.320 


147 




42.4 


19.5 



5 


7 


5.5 


7 7 


15 


37 


1.5 


2X.S 


7 


9 


6.2 


8.0 


26 


54 


7.9 


16.4 


6 


6 


6.6 


6.6 


so 


113 


7.8 


15.0 



6 
6.6 

5 
3.8 

8 

/ I 

45 

13.6 



64 

8.5 



5 
3.8 



51 
9 1 



4(( 
5.3 



5 

0.7 



3 
0.9 



? 
0.4 



t 



1 

o.i 



3 
0.9 



5 

0.4 



257"// D1STRIC1 





',', 


31 1 


130 


102 


23 


i y 


I l 




Percenl tgc ol rotal 




51.9 


21.7 


17.0 


3.8 


! 7 


l •; 




'.ell 


556 


245 


98 


61 


50 


39 


II 


29 


ofTotal 




44.1 


17.6 


11.0 


9.0 


7.0 


7.4 


4.0 




1.003 


61 1 


237 


i i 


64 


7 






il Total 




60.9 


2^ 6 


8 4 


6.4 


0.7 






District lotals 


2,158 


1.167 


465 


247 


1 (7 


68 


S2 


22 


Percentage of 1 otal 




54.1 


21.5 


11.4 


6.3 


J.2 


2.4 


1.0 



114 



ACES OF MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 

Total lissthan 3II-MI hl-W 41-1X0 lXll)a\s I Year 2Sears 3 Years 4 Stars Greater 

26TH DISTRICT Pending 30Days l)a\s l)a>s Days fo 1 Year fo 2 Years i"o 3 Years To4Years fo5Years IhanSYears 



Mecklenburg 


5,246 


2,651 


1,194 


461 


438 


202 


180 


46 


44 


15 


15 


Percentage of Total 




50.5 


22.8 


8.8 


8.3 


3.9 


3.4 


0.9 


0.8 


0.3 


} 


District Totals 


5,246 


2,651 


1,194 


46 1 


438 


202 


1H0 


46 


44 


15 


l^ 


Percentage of Total 




50.5 


22.8 


8.8 


8.3 


3.9 


\A 


» 9 


is 8 


0.3 


03 


27TH DISTRICT 
























Cleveland 


804 


M\ 


160 


100 


133 


28 


s 


5 








Percentage of Total 




46.4 


19.9 


12.4 


16.5 


3.5 


0.6 


0.6 








Gaston 


1,863 


774 


383 


192 


302 


190 


19 


3 








Percentage of Total 




41.5 


20.6 


10.3 


16.2 


10.2 


1 


0.2 








Lincoln 


269 


1 50 


53 


56 


") ■) 


4 


4 










Percentage of Total 




48.3 


19.7 


20.8 


8 2 


1 5 


1.5 










District Totals 


2,936 


1,277 


596 


348 


457 


222 


28 


8 








Percentage of Total 




43.5 


20.3 


11.9 


15.6 


7.6 


1.0 


i 








28TH DISTRICT 

























Buncombe 1,126 605 180 105 148 72 13 3 

Percentage of Total 53.7 16.0 9.3 13.1 6.4 1.2 0.3 

District Totals 1,126 605 180 105 148 72 13 3 

Percentage of Total 53.7 16.0 9.3 13.1 6.4 1.2 0.3 

29TH DISTRICT 



Henderson 


628 


270 


121 


85 


94 


24 


14 


1? 


2 


1 




Percentage of Total 




43.0 


19.3 


13.5 


15.0 


3.8 


i 2 


2 7 


0.3 


0.2 




McDowell 


326 


162 


109 


26 


15 


7 


1 










Percentage of Total 




49.7 


33.4 


8.0 


4.6 


2.1 


2.1 










Polk 


165 


62 


31 


12 


18 


23 


8 


8 


3 






Percentage of Total 




37.6 


18.8 


7 3 


10.9 


13.9 


4.8 


4 X 


1.8 






Rutherford 


392 


204 


64 


50 


32 


6 


52 


3 




1 




Percentage of Total 




52.0 


16.3 


7.7 


8.2 


I 5 


13.3 


ox 




o 3 




Transylvania 


231 


132 


36 


24 


24 


15 












Percentage of Total 




57.1 


15.6 


10.4 


10.4 


6.5 












District Totals 


1,742 


830 


361 


177 


183 


7^ 


HI 


28 


5 


2 




Percentage of Total 




47.6 


20.7 


10.2 


10.5 


4 J 


4 6 


il » 


0.3 • 


<l. 1 




30TH DISTRICT 
























Cherokee 


137 


70 


33 


12 


21 




1 










Percentage of Total 




51.1 


24.1 


8.8 


15.3 




0.7 










Clay 


75 


32 


16 


6 


8 


3 


3 


1 








Percentage of Total 




42.7 


21.3 


8.0 


10.7 


4.0 


1 


9.3 








Graham 


48 


25 


4 


J 


7 


8 


-> 










Percentage of Total 




52.1 


8 5 


4.2 


14.6 


16.7 


4.2 










Haywood 


376 


149 


105 


47 


48 


23 


4 










Percentage of Total 




39.6 


27.9 


12.5 


12.8 


6.1 


I 1 










Jackson 


166 


133 


2 ) 


2 


6 


3 












Percentage of Total 




80.1 


13.3 


1.2 


3.6 


1.8 












Macon 


148 


S2 


31 


13 


9 


4 


33 


6 








Percentage of Total 




35.1 


20.9 


8.8 


6 1 


2.7 


22.3 


4.1 








Swain 


151 


96 


24 


8 


9 


6 


7 


1 








Percentage of Total 




63.6 


15.9 


5.3 


6.0 


4.0 


4 6 


0.7 








District Totals 


1,101 


557 


235 


90 


108 


47 


50 


14 








Percentage of Total 




50.6 


21.3 


8.2 


<»x 


4 5 


4.5 


1.3 








State Totals 


73,437 


33,472 


13396 


6,245 


6,494 


4,249 


4,253 


2,512 


896 


504 


1.416 


Percentage of Total 




45.6 


18.2 


8.5 


8.8 


5.8 


5.8 


3.4 


1 2 


n." 


1.9 



115 



AGES OF NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



1ST DISTRICT 

Camden 

Percentage of Total 
Chow an 

Percentage of Total 
Currituck 

Percentage of Total 
Dare 

Percentage of Total 
Gates 

Percentage of Total 
Pasquotank 

Percentage of Total 
Perquimans 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



Total 
Pending 


less than 
SO Days 


30-00 
Days 


61-90 
Days 


91-180 

Days 


181 Days 
To 1 Year 


1 Year 

To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To 3 Years 


3 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 
To 5 Years 


Greater 
Than 5 Years 


- 


3 
42.9 


1 

14.3 




2 

28.6 


1 

14.3 












62 


22 

35.5 


7 
11.3 


3.2 


4 
6.5 


1 

L 

3 2 


n 

17.7 


l 

1.6 




i 

l 6 


12 

19.4 


50 


16 
32.0 


8 
16.0 


1 
2.0 


21 
42.0 


3 
6.0 


1 
2.0 










112 


42 
37.5 


15 
13.4 


14 

12.5 


19 
17.0 


8 
7.1 


7 


6 

S4 




1 
0.9 




1 ■ 


2 
11.8 










2 
11.8 


9 
52.9 


2 
11.8 




2 
11.8 


ss 


56 
63.6 


8 
9 l 


4 
4.5 


14 
15.9 


6 

(.X 












46 


9 
19.6 


9 
19.6 


1 
2.2 


4 

8.7 


3 
6.5 


9 
19.6 


2 
4.3 


2 
4 ! 


4 
X 7 


3 
6 5 


382 


150 
39.3 


48 
12.6 


22 
5.8 


64 
16.8 


23 
6.0 


30 

7.9 


18 

4.7 


4 
1.0 


6 
1.6 


17 
4.5 



2\D DISTRICT 

Beaufort 

Percentage of Total 
Hyde 

Percentage of Total 
Martin 

Percentage of Total 
Tyrrell 

Percentage of Total 
Washington 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



128 


34 
26.6 


9 

7(1 


14 
10.9 


26 
20.3 


10 

7.8 


24 
18.8 


25 


17 
68.0 


1 

4 


-i 
8.0 


5 
20.0 






115 


57 
49.6 


16 
13.9 


17 
14.8 


18 
15.7 


2 
1.7 


3 
2.6 


21 


5 
23.8 


7 
33.3 


3 
14.3 


5 
23.8 




1 
4X 


22 


16 

72.7 


3 
13.6 




3 
13.6 






Jll 


129 
41.5 


36 
11.6 


36 
11.6 


57 
18.3 


12 
3.9 


28 
9.0 



7 
5 5 



7 
2.3 



3 
2 3 



I 
0.9 



1 

OH 



I 
0') 



4 2 

1.3 0.6 



3RD DISTRICT 

Carteret 

Percentage of Total 
Craven 

Percentage of Total 
Pamlico 

Percentage of Total 
Pitt 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of I otal 



266 


105 


40 


32 


19 


38 




39.5 


15.0 


12.0 


7.1 


14.3 


273 


125 


49 


26 


32 


15 




45.8 


17.9 


9.5 


11.7 


5.5 


44 


13 


8 


12 


9 


1 




29.5 


IX. 2 


27.3 


20.5 


2.3 


468 


257 


83 


42 


32 


39 




54.9 


17.7 


'Ml 


6.8 


8.3 


1,051 


500 


180 


112 


42 


93 




47.6 


17.1 


10.7 


8.8 


8.8 



x J 


1.9 


18 


5 


(,(, 


1 X 


1 

2.3 




11 


4 


2.4 


0.9 


52 


14 


4.9 


1.3 



0.8 



4 77/ DISTRICT 

Duplin 

Percentage of Total 
Jones 

Percentage ol Total 
Onslow 

Percentage "I Total 
Sampson 

Percentage of Total 
District totals 

Percentage of I otal 



14X 


X7 


43 


IX 






5X.X 


29.1 


12.2 




•X, 


SS 


25 


9 


4 




57.3 


26.0 


9.4 


4.2 


746 


396 


20X 


93 


35 




53.1 


27.9 


12.5 


4.7 


34X 


135 


94 


32 


36 




38.8 


27.0 


9.2 


10.3 


1338 


673 


370 


152 


7^ 




50.3 


27.7 


11.4 


S.6 



1 I 

14 
1.9 

30 

X.6 

46 

\4 



14 

4.0 

is 

II 



4 
0.3 



0.3 

I 

I). I 



ill 



0.3 

I 

0.1 



AGES OF NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



5TH DISTRICT 



Total 
Pending 



Less than 
30 Davs 



30-60 
Days 



61-90 
Davs 



3 Years 



4 Years 



91-180 181 Days I Year 2 Years 

Davs To I Year To 2 Years To 3 Years To 4 Years lo 5 Years Than 5 Years 



New Hanover 


937 


360 


223 


110 


52 


86 


V) 


46 


1 


Percentage of Total 




38.4 


23.8 


11.7 


5.5 


9.2 


6 3 


4.9 


1 


Pender 


86 


41 


14 


5 


5 


7 


14 






Percentage of Total 




47.7 


16.3 


5.8 


5.8 


x 1 


16.3 






District Totals 


1,023 


401 


237 


115 


57 


93 


73 


46 


1 


Percentage of Total 




39.2 


23.2 


11.2 


5.6 


9.1 


7 J 


4.5 


(Ml 


6TH DISTRICT 




















Bertie 


53 


37 


11 


5 












Percentage of Total 




69.8 


20.8 


9.4 












Halifax 


277 


157 


82 


14 


17 


5 


-i 






Percentage of Total 




56.7 


29.6 


5.1 


6 1 


1 X 


0.7 






Hertford 


109 


36 


23 


21 


1 1 


13 




2 


1 


Percentage of Total 




33.0 


21.1 


19.3 


10.1 


11.9 


1 X 


1.8 


()>) 


Northampton 


48 


12 


16 


7 


9 


1 


1 


: 




Percentage of Total 




25.0 


33.3 


14.6 


18.8 


2.1 


2.1 


4.2 




District Totals 


487 


242 


132 


47 


37 


19 


5 


4 


S 


Percentage of Total 




49.7 


27.1 


9.7 


7.6 


3.9 


1.0 


0,8 


0.2 


7TH DISTRICT 




















Edgecombe 


266 


161 


66 


18 


14 


4 


3 






Percentage of Total 




60.5 


24.8 


6.8 


5.3 


1.5 


1.1 






Nash 


360 


166 


81 


45 


41 


15 


5 


6 




Percentage of Total 




46.1 


22.5 


12.5 


11.4 


4 : 


1.4 


1 7 




Wilson 


124 


151 


62 


26 


33 


ii 


[6 






Percentage of Total 




46.6 


19.1 


8.0 


10.2 


9.6 


4 9 






District Totals 


950 


478 


209 


89 


88 


50 


24 


6 




Percentage of Total 




50J 


22.0 


9.4 


9.3 


5.3 


2.5 


0.6 




STH DISTRICT 




















Greene 


63 


15 


17 


12 


18 




1 






Percentage of Total 




23.8 


27.0 


19.0 


28.6 




1 6 






Lenoir 


409 


167 


115 


44 


69 


i: 


-> 

- 






Percentage of Total 




40.8 


28.1 


108 


16.9 


:» 


o 5 






Wayne 


471 


252 


90 


33 


56 


33 


7 






Percentage of Total 




53.5 


19.1 


7.0 


11.9 


7.0 


1.5 






District Totals 


943 


434 


222 


89 


143 


45 


10 






Percentage of Total 




46.0 


23.5 


9.4 


15.2 


4.8 


!J 






977/ DISTRICT 





















Franklin 

Percentage of Total 
Granville 

Percentage of Total 
Person 

Percentage of Total 
Vance 

Percentage of Total 
Warren 

Percentage ol Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 





1 

0-3 


1 
(1 1 


4 
1.2 


1 
III 


5 
0.5 



102 


40 


20 


3 


16 


13 


5 


3 


1 


1 






39.2 


19.6 


2.9 


15.7 


12.7 


4.9 


2 9 


1 (i 


1.0 




176 


48 


14 


7 


28 


24 


18 


18 


9 


6 


4 




27.3 


8.0 


4(1 


15.9 


13.6 


10.2 


10.2 


5.1 


14 


2.3 


134 


56 


26 


7 


12 


6 


23 


3 


1 








41.8 


19.4 


5 : 


9.0 


4.5 


17.2 


■> 2 


0.7 






190 


90 


29 


26 


35 


9 


1 












47.4 


15.3 


13.7 


18.4 


4 7 


0.5 










150 


21 


13 


9 


19 


29 


45 


-i 


3 




9 




14.0 


8 7 


6.0 


12.7 


19.3 


30.0 


1.3 


2.0 




6.0 


752 


255 


102 


S2 


110 


81 


92 


26 


14 


7 


13 




33.9 


13.6 


6.9 


14.6 


10.8 


12.2 


3.5 


1.9 


0.9 


1.7 



117 



U,l S OF NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DEC EMBER 31, 3976 





lolal 


Less than 


)0-9fl 


•ll-IWI 


41-IWI 


ISI Days 


1 S car 


2 Scar- 


s 


Pending 


30 Days 


Days 


l)a\s 


Days 


In 1 Year 


In 2 Scars 


1 (i 1 Vea 




2.00-4 


4 12 


514 


, -I -1 


220 


III? 


25 


8 


1 




45.5 


25.6 


1 LI 


1 1.0 


5.1 


1.2 


0.4 


District 1 otals 


2.11(14 


412 


514 


222 


220 


1(12 


25 


8 


Percentage of 1 olal 




45.5 


25.6 


111 


ll.l) 


5.1 


12 


0.4 



3 Years 4 \ ears Greater 

(il Stars fo 4 Years I n 5 Sears Than 5 Sears 



MM KU I 

4 Total 

:ofl otal 

gcol Total 
Districi Totals 

Percentage of I otal 



459 



1,031 



107 


67 


38 


29 




215 


13.3 


102 


185 


89 


61 


77 


40.3 


19.4 


13 3 


16.8 


129 


133 


24 


1 


44 4 


46.3 


N 4 


0.3 


421 


289 


123 


HP 



4(1.8 



28.(1 



11.9 



10.4 



18 
6.3 

28 
6.1 



46 
4.5 



3 
1.1 
10 



13 
1.3 



8 
2.8 

4 
0.9 



12 

1.2 



1 
0.4 



4 
1.4 



((.I 



0.4 



10 
3.5 



I- 
1.5 



/ 277/ DISTRICT 



icrland 


1.720 


6X6 


432 


■}■}") 


211 


134 


34 


Percentage of! otal 




39.9 


25.1 


12.9 


12.3 


7.8 


2.0 


H 


1 1 1 


55 


20 


28 


5 


1 


-> 


. ■ >! 1 otal 




4') 5 


18.0 


25.2 


4 5 


0.9 


I 8 


Districi Totals 


1.831 


741 


452 


250 


216 


135 


36 


Percentage of Total 


40.5 


24.7 


13.7 


11.8 


74 


2(1 





0.1 



I 

0.1 



3TH DISTRICI 



B 


S85 


114 


44 


30 


36 


14 


76 


54 


12 


Percentage of Total 




29.6 


11.4 


7.8 


9.4 


3.6 


19.7 


14.0 


i 1 


B 


226 


90 


54 


40 


28 


5 


s 


"J 




intage of! otal 




39 8 


26.1 


17.7 


12.4 


-i -> 


0.9 


0.9 




' 


676 


291 


168 


127 


34 


26 


12 


I 1 


7 


ige of Total 




43.0 


24 9 


18.8 


5.0 


3.8 


1 s 


1.6 


1 


District Totals 


1,287 


495 


271 


197 


98 


4S 


90 


67 


19 


Percentage of Total 


21.1 


15.3 


7.0 


J.5 


7.(1 


5.2 


1.5 


0.2 


(I I 



5 



3 

0.8 



•4TH DISTRH I 





1,410 


368 


1X7 


148 


68 


77 


48 


111 


68 


37 


289 


P of Total 




26.1 


13.3 


10.5 


4.8 


S s 


3.4 


X s 


4.8 


2.6 


20.5 


District 1 otals 


1.410 


368 


187 


148 


68 


77 


4X 


120 


OX 


<7 


289 


Percentage of 1 otal 




26.1 


13.3 


10.5 


4.X 


5.5 


J.4 


x.s 


4.X 


2.0 


20.5 



/// DISTRK I 



\ 


144 


1X2 


X2 


41 


53 


II 


29 


['Tola 




41 


18.5 


4 2 


1 1 9 


9.4 


6.5 


' 


76 


47 


12 


1 


<) 


2 


2 


1 Total 




M 8 


IS X 


s \ 


1 IX 


2.6 


2.6 


> 


120 


2s 


16 


23 


31 


21 


4 


1 : 




20 X 


1 1 ! 


19.2 


25.X 


17.5 


3.3 


District 1 otals 


640 


254 


1 Ml 


68 


93 


67 


)5 


Percentage of 1 otal 




39.7 


17.2 


1(1.0 


14.5 


10.5 


5.5 



1 1 

2.5 



II 

1.7 



I 
0.2 



1 
0.2 



I 
0.2 



AGES OF NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



161 H DISTRICT 



total 

■melius 



I ess than 30-60 

30 Days [)a\s 



hl.911 
Days 



41-1X11 
l>a\s 



1X1 l)a\s 
lot \ t-ar 



I \ ear 
In 2 \ ears 



2 N ears 
I < » Jl \ ears 



3 Years 
[o 4 Years 



4 \ ears Greater 

lo 5 Years than 5 Years 



Robeson 


\:s 


447 


185 


108 


69 


17 


T 










Percentage of Total 




54.0 


22.3 


13.0 


X.3 


2.1 


0.2 










Scotland 


213 


152 


25 


23 


X 


1 


4 










Percentage of Total 




71.4 


1 1.7 


10. X 


3.X 


0.5 


1.9 










District Totals 


1,041 


599 


210 


131 


"7 


IX 


h 










Percentage of Total 




57.5 


20.2 


12.6 


7.4 


1.7 


0.6 










I7TH DISTRICT 
























Caswell 


97 


42 


1 "1 


13 


13 


5 


1 


1 








Percentage ol Total 




43.3 


22.7 


13.4 


13.4 


5.2 


1 


1.0 








Rockingham 


723 


2 Mi 


117 


9X 


152 


67 


12 


11 








Percentage of Total 




36.X 


16.2 


13.6 


21.0 


9.3 


1.7 


1.5 








Stokes 


I 16 


63 


35 


12 


14 


20 


1 


1 








Percentage of Total 




43.2 


24.0 


x 2 


9.6 


13.7 


0.7 


i) 7 








Surry 


387 


165 


56 


XI 


54 


17 


14 










Percentage ol Total 




42.6 


14.5 


20.9 


14.0 


1 ! 


3.6 










District Totals 


1,353 


536 


230 


204 


233 


109 


2X 


S3 








Percentage of Total 




39.6 


17.0 


15.1 


17.2 


X I 


2 1 


11 








IHTH DISTRICT 
























Guilford 


4,983 


6 1 2 


664 


617 


X53 


767 


715 


569 


1 )0 


40 


If. 


Percentage of Total 




12.3 


13.3 


12.4 


17.1 


15.4 


14.3 


11.4 


2.6 


X 


0.3 


High Point 


3,057 


321 


246 


251 


244 


290 


329 


336 


234 


207 


599 


Percentage of Total 




10.5 


8.0 


8.2 


8.0 


9.5 


10.8 


11.0 


7 7 


6.X 


19 6 


District Totals 


8,04(1 


933 


910 


868 


1 ,097 


1,057 


1,044 


905 


364 


247 


615 


Percentage of Total 




11.6 


11.3 


10.8 


13.6 


13.1 


13.0 


11.3 


4.? 


J.l 


7.6 


I9TH DISTRICT 
























Cabarrus 


231 


120 


66 


16 


24 


1 


1 


3 








Percentage of Total 




51.9 


28.6 


6.9 


10.4 


0.4 


0.4 


1.3 








Montgomery 


382 


218 


36 


15 


23 


30 


20 


23 


16 




1 


Percentage of Total 




57.1 


9 4 


3.9 


(,[) 


7.9 


5 2 


(,() 


4.2 




(i 3 


Randolph 


366 


176 


47 


40 


26 


24 


23 


1 ! 


1 1 


3 


3 


Percentage of Total 




48.1 


12.8 


10.9 


7.1 


6.6 


6 ) 


3 6 


30 


0.8 


0.8 


Rowan 


349 


158 


5X 


35 


40 


20 


19 


10 


6 


3 




Percentage of Total 




45.3 


16.6 


10.0 


11.5 


5.7 


5 4 


2.9 


1 7 


0.9 




District Totals 


1,328 


672 


207 


(IK. 


113 


75 


63 


4<» 


33 


6 


4 


Percentage of Total 




50.6 


15.6 


8.0 


8.5 


5.6 


4 7 


$.7 


2.5 


0.5 


0.3 


20TH DISTRICT 

























Anson 

Percentage of Total 
Moore 

Percentage of Total 
Richmond 

Percentage of Total 
Stanly 

Percentage of Total 
Union 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



168 


81 


41 


24 


16 


4 


1 




48.2 


24.4 


14.3 


9.5 


2 4 


0.6 


271 


1 19 


63 


37 


19 


7 


13 




43.9 


23.2 


13.7 


7.0 


2.6 


4.8 


200 


92 


37 


32 


12 


11 


in 




46.0 


18.5 


16.0 


6.0 


5.5 


5.0 


303 


73 


35 


15 


6 


29 


47 




24.1 


11.6 


5.0 


2.0 


9.6 


15.5 


265 


124 


31 


8 


29 


27 


40 




46.8 


11.7 


! 


10.9 


10.2 


15.1 


1,207 


489 


207 


IK. 


X2 


78 


ill 




40.5 


17.1 


9.6 


6.8 


6.5 


9 2 



1 

0.6 

in 
3.7 

6 
3.0 

12 
4.0 

6 
2 3 

$5 
2.9 



1 I 



6.9 



24 
2.0 



1 1 


54 


3.6 


17. X 


11 


54 


0.9 


4.5 



19 



AGES OF NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



Percentage of Total 
District Totals 
Percentage of 1 otal 



Total 
Pending 


Less than 
30 Days 


10-60 
Dais 


61-W 
Days 


"1-180 
Days 


181 Dais 
lo 1 Year 


1 Year 
To 2 Years 


2 Years 
To3 Years 


3 Years 
To 4 Years 


4 Years 

To 5 Years 


Greater 

Than 5 Years 


905 


559 


212 


87 


15 


->T 


5 


•y 


1 


I 






61.8 


23.4 


9.6 


1.7 


2.4 


0.6 


0.2 


II 1 


(i 2 




905 


559 


212 


87 


I* 


22 


5 


2 


1 


2 






61.8 


23.4 


>>.6 


1.7 


2 4 


0.6 


0.2 


III 


0.2 





:: NY) DISTRICT 

Alexander 

Percentage of Total 
Da\ idson 

Percentage of Total 
Da\ ie 

Percentage of Total 
Iredell 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



65 


31 


14 




47.7 


21.5 


404 


210 


83 




52.0 


20.5 


67 


28 


19 




41.8 


28.4 


195 


106 


60 




54.4 


30.8 


731 


375 


176 




51 J 


24.1 



10 

15.4 

31 

7.7 

11 

16.4 

15 

7 7 
67 
<>2 



9 


1 


3.8 


1 5 


31 


26 


7.7 


6.4 


4 


3 


6.0 


4.5 


9 


4 


4.6 


2.1 


53 


M 


7.3 


4.7 



3.0 



3.0 



14 
1.9 



8 
2.0 



1.2 



3 
0.7 



3 
0.4 



23RD DISTRICT 

Alleghanj 

Percentage of Total 
Ashe 

Percentage of Total 
Wilkes 

Percentage of Jotal 
Yadkin 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



32 


10 


3 




31.3 


9.4 


I 54 


52 


21 




38.8 


15.7 


439 


201 


42 




45.8 


9.6 


62 


37 


15 




59.7 


24.2 


667 


300 


81 




45.0 


12.1 



6.3 

17 

12.7 

23 

5.2 

3.2 
44 
6.6 



3 


12 


l 


1 


9.4 


37.5 


3.1 


i 1 


1 1 


17 


6 


7 


8.2 


12.7 


4.5 


5.2 


36 


32 


62 


43 


8.2 


7.3 


14.1 


9.8 


7 


1 






1 1 


1 6 






57 


62 


69 


51 


8.5 


9.3 


10.3 


7.6 



0.7 



0.1 



2 
0.3 



24TH DISTRICT 

•\\er> 

Percentage of Total 
Madison 

Percentage of Total 
Mitchell 

Percentage of Total 
Wjtjuga 

Percentage of Total 
\ ance> 

Percentage <>l Total 
District lotals 

Percentage of I otal 



153 


78 


37 


14 


19 


5 








51.0 


24.2 


9.2 


12.4 


3.3 






1 tu 


34 


20 


16 


30 


16 


1 1 


7 




24.3 


14.3 


1 1.4 


21.4 


II 4 


7.9 


5 n 


49 


18 


13 


1 


4 


10 


3 






36.7 


26.5 


2.0 


8.2 


20.4 


6.1 




140 


24 


19 


9 


14 


28 


26 


13 




17.1 


13.6 


6.4 


10.0 


20.0 


18.6 


9.3 


18 


14 
77.8 


3 
16.7 






1 
5.6 






500 


168 


92 


40 


67 


60 


40 


20 




3.3.6 


18.4 


8.0 


13.4 


12.0 


8.0 


4.0 



s 

1.0 



0.7 



0.7 



2 
0.4 



6 
1.2 



r h I ; I s i p 1 1 i 

Burke 

Percentage ol 1 otal 

' '.ell 

Percentage i il I otal 

Percentage of Total 
District lotals 

Percentage of I otal 



!69 


125 


44 


49 




46.5 


16.4 


18.2 


484 


170 


84 


66 




35.1 


174 


13.6 


' 


315 


140 


45 




55.6 


24.7 


7.9 


1 .320 


610 


268 


160 




46.2 


20.3 


12.1 



19 

' l 
23 
4.8 
52 
9.2 

94 

7.1 



8.2 
34 

7.0 
15 

2.6 
71 

5 4 



7 


3 


2.6 


1 1 


47 


54 


9.7 


11.2 


S4 


S7 


4.1 


43 



6 
0.5 



120 



ACES OF NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES PENDING 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DECEMBER 31, 1976 



26TH DISTRICT 


Total 
Pending 


Less (han 
30 Days 


30-60 
Days 


61-90 
Days 


91-18(1 
Days 


INI Davs 
lo 1 Near 


1 Year 
I o 2 Year*. 


2 Years 
To y Years 


.1 Years 
To 4 V ears 


4 Years 
To 5 Years 


(.reaier 
Than 5 Years 


Mecklenburg 


4,292 


1,355 


675 


274 


Ml 


512 


519 


2X8 


185 


87 


56 


Percentage of Total 




31.6 


15.7 


6.4 


7.9 


11.9 


12.1 


6.7 


4.3 


2.0 


1.3 


District Totals 


4,292 


1,355 


675 


274 


341 


512 


519 


288 


ISS 


K7 


56 


Percentage of Total 




31.6 


15.7 


6.4 


7.9 


11.9 


12.1 


6.7 


4.? 


2.0 


1.3 


27 TH DISTRICT 
























Cleveland 


607 


229 


1 16 


92 


82 


65 


14 


7 


-> 






Percentage ol Total 




7.7 


19.1 


15.2 


13.5 


10.7 


2.3 


1 2 


! 






Gaston 


1,090 


453 


->">-> 


111 


141 


89 


42 


11 




1') 


-i 


Percentage of Total 




41.6 


20.4 


10.2 


12.9 


8.2 


3.9 


1 




1.7 


0.2 


Lincoln 


237 


115 


58 


40 


16 


5 


2 


1 








Percentage of Total 




48.5 


24.5 


16.9 


6.8 


2.1 


0.8 


0.4 








District Totals 


1,934 


797 


396 


243 


239 


159 


^K 


IM 


2 


19 


2 


Percentage of Total 




41.2 


20.5 


12.6 


12.4 


X.2 


3.0 


1 o 


0.1 


LO 


0.1 


2HTH DISTRICT 

























Buncombe 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



602 


305 


133 


54 


48 


24 


1(1 


7 


1 




50.7 


22.1 


9.0 


8.0 


4 


5.0 


! 2 


0.2 


602 


305 


133 


54 


48 


24 


30 


7 


1 




50.7 


22.1 


9.0 


8.0 


4.0 


5.0 


1.2 


0.2 



29TH DISTRICT 

Henderson 

Percentage of Total 
McDowell 

Percentage of Total 
Polk 

Percentage of Total 
Rutherford 

Percentage of Total 
Transylvania 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 



265 
I 12 

69 
217 

59 
722 



102 
38.5 

45 
40.2 

23 

33.3 

107 

49.3 

29 
49.2 
306 
42.4 



38 
14.3 

39 
34.8 

19 
27.5 

28 
12.9 

14 
23.7 
138 
19.1 



26 
9.8 

5 

4.5 

11 

15.9 

15 

6.9 

7 

11.9 

64 

8.9 



38 

14.3 

3 

2 7 

6 

8.7 

31 

14.3 

9 

15.3 

S7 

12.0 



17 

6.4 

13 

11.6 

5 

7 2 



46 

6.4 



23 

8.7 

4 

3.6 

1 

1 4 

16 

7.4 



44 
6.1 



17 
6.4 

3 
2 7 

3 
4.3 

5 
2.3 



28 
3.9 



I) s 



0.9 



5 

0.7 



0.8 



0.5 



3 
04 



0.5 



I 
0.1 



30TH DISTRICT 

Cherokee 

Percentage of Total 
Clay 

Percentage of Total 
Graham 

Percentage of Total 
Haywood 

Percentage of Total 
Jackson 

Percentage of Total 
Macon 

Percentage of Total 
Swain 

Percentage of Total 
District Totals 

Percentage of Total 
State Totals 

Percentage of Total 



xs 


60 

68.2 


19 
21.6 


7 

NO 


2 
2.3 














19 


12 
63.2 


4 
21.1 


1 

5.3 




1 

5.3 




1 

5.3 








26 


8 
30.8 


1 
3.8 


8 
30.8 


6 
23.1 


3 
11.5 












376 


106 

28.2 


50 
13.3 


27 

7.2 


71 
18.9 


95 

25.3 


24 
6.4 


3 
0.8 








^4 


39 

52.7 


17 
23.0 


4 
5.4 


5 
6.8 


5 
6.8 


3 

4 1 


1 

1.4 








90 


23 

25.6 


12 

13.3 


12 
13.3 


14 
15.6 


5 
5 6 


24 
26.7 










104 


19 
18.3 


35 

33.7 


16 
15.4 


13 
12.5 


1 

1 i) 


14 
13.5 


5 
4.8 


1 

1 






777 


267 
34.4 


138 

17.8 


75 
9.7 


111 
14.3 


110 
14.2 


65 

8.4 


HI 
1.3 


1 
0.1 






40,859 


14,724 
36.0 


7,432 
18.2 


4,255 
10.4 


4,239 
10.4 


3,371 
8.3 


2.726 
6.7 


1,825 
4.5 


755 
1.8 


449 

II 


1 ,083 

2.7 



12 



DISTRICT COl'RT ACTIVITY IN MOTOR VEHICLE AND SMALL CLAIM CASES* 

January 1, 1976 — December 31, 1976 



Motor Vehicle Cases Disposed Of By Waiver 



Small Claim Cases Disposed Of By Magistrate 







Motor Vehicle 


Per Cent 






Per Cent 




Motor Vehicle 


Cases Disposed Of 


Disposed Of 


Small Claims 


Disposed Of 


Disposed Of 


1ST DISTRICT 


Cases Filed 


By Waiver 


By Waiver 


Filed 


By Magistrate 


By Magistrate 


Camden 


1300 


893 


68.7 


87 


82 


94.3 


Chow .in 


1550 


1064 


68.6 


289 


292 


101.0 


Currituck 


1602 


889 


55.5 


1 H 


134 


77.0 


Dare 


2814 


1824 


64.8 


193 


182 


94.3 


Gates 


1111 


935 


84.1 


227 


201 


88.5 


Pasquotank 


2473 


1712 


69.2 


1030 


1035 


100.5 


Perquimans 


1326 


996 


75.1 


145 


135 


93.1 


TOTAL 


12176 


8313 


68.3 


2145 


2061 


96.1 


2XD DISTRICT 














Beaufort 


5322 


3850 


72.3 


1340 


1307 


97.5 


Hyde 


565 


371 


65.7 


88 


83 


94.3 


Martin 


3622 


2218 


61.2 


870 


774 


89.0 


Tyrrell 


948 


709 


74.8 


77 


69 


89.6 


Washington 


1509 


1311 


86.9 


376 


329 


87.5 


TOTAL 


11966 


8459 


70.7 


2751 


2562 


93.1 


3RD DISTRICT 














Carteret 


5509 


3219 


58.4 


969 


642 


66.3 


C raven 


7719 


5140 


66.6 


1147 


1121 


97.7 


Pamlico 


1384 


778 


56.2 


171 


161 


94.2 


Put 


12204 


8735 


71.6 


2336 


2175 


93.1 


TOTAL 


26816 


17872 


66.6 


4623 


4099 


88.7 


4TH DISTRICT 














Duplin 


6882 


5950 


86.5 


1289 


1247 


96.7 


Jones 


1515 


932 


61.5 


163 


137 


84.0 


Onslow 


12031 


3909 


32.5 


1869 


2418 


129.3 


Sampson 


6329 


4384 


69.3 


1683 


1487 


88.4 


TOTAL 


26757 


15175 


56.7 


5004 


5289 


105.7 


577/ DISTRICT 














New Hanover 


11485 


8481 


73.8 


3022 


2777 


91.9 


Pender 


3525 


1958 


55.5 


425 


404 


95.1 


TOTAL 


15010 


10439 


69.5 


3447 


3181 


92.3 


6 TH DISTRICT 














Bertie 


2900 


2068 


71.3 


573 


466 


81.3 


Halifax 


5869 


3747 


63.8 


1274 


1382 


108.4 


Hertford 


3883 


2653 


68.3 


526 


492 


93.5 


Northampton 


3632 


2105 


58.0 


646 


743 


115.0 


i or \l 


162K4 


10573 


64.9 


3019 


3083 


102.1 


7TH DISTRICT 














1 dgecombe 


6350 


4727 


74.4 


2304 


2233 


96.9 


S 


7208 


4903 


68.0 


1814 


1846 


101.8 




5914 


4520 


76.4 


2207 


2194 


99.4 


TO! \I 


19472 


14150 


72.7 


6325 


6273 


99.2 



' ! ome counties the percent of cases disposed of "by waiver" 

I ; iar> I, 1976 arc not included in the "filed" column. 



'by magistrate" may exceed one hundred percent because cases pending on 



122 



Motor Vehicje Cases Disposed Of By Waiver 



Small Claim Cases Disposed Of By Magistrate 







Motor Vehicle 


Per Cent 






Per Cent 




Motor Vehicle 


Cases Disposed Of 


Disposed Of 


Small Claims 


Disposed Of 


Disposed Of 


STH DISTRICT 


Cases Filed 


By Waiver 


By Waiver 


Filed 


By Magistrate 


By Magistrate 


Greene 


1916 


1320 


68.9 


235 


262 


111.5 


Lenoir 


7339 


4553 


62.0 


2502 


2376 


95.0 


Wayne 


8342 


5184 


62.1 


2356 


">3*>2 


98.6 


TOTAL 


17597 


1 1057 


62.8 


5093 


4960 


97.4 


977V DISTRICT 














Franklin 


4586 


3148 


68.6 


700 


569 


81.3 


Granville 


4587 


3315 


72.3 


1130 


1114 


98.6 


Person 


2954 


1948 


65.9 


753 


1025 


136.1 


Vance 


3494 


2548 


72.9 


1500 


1404 


93.6 


Warren 


1410 


II 10 


78.7 


353 


310 


87.8 


TOTAL 


17031 


12069 


70.9 


4436 


4422 


99.7 


10TH DISTRICT 















Wake 



41976 



26046 



62.0 



8351 



7198 



86.2 



I ITH DISTRICT 



Harnett 


6316 


3790 


Johnston 


7876 


4454 


Lee 


3366 


3147 


TOTAL 


17558 


11391 


I2TH DISTRICT 






Cumberland 


27758 


17954 


Hoke 


3054 


2249 


TOTAL 


30812 


20203 


I3TH DISTRICT 






Bladen 


6016 


3653 


Brunswick 


2960 


2019 


Columbus 


6216 


4724 


TOTAL 


15192 


10396 


NTH DISTRICT 







60.0 


1490 


1398 


56.6 


1818 


1759 


93.5 


940 


941 


64.9 


4248 


4098 



Durham 



19487 



11043 



64.7 
73.6 
65.6 



60.7 
68.2 
76.0 
68.4 



56.7 



5360 
382 

5742 



548 

712 

1402 

2662 



8906 



535 

706 

1408 

2649 



7094 



93.8 
96.8 
100.1 
96.5 



4948 


92.3 


386 


101.0 


5334 


92.9 



97.6 
99.2 
100.4 
99.5 



79.7 



I STH DISTRICT 



Alamance 


12230 


7751 


Chatham 


5077 


2992 


Orange 


7096 


5406 


TOTAL 


24403 


16149 


I6TH DISTRICT 






Robeson 


12068 


6824 


Scotland 


5765 


3834 


TOTAL 


17833 


10658 



*For some counties the percent of cases disposed of "by waiver" or 
January I, 1976 are not included in the "filed" column. 



63.4 
58.9 
76.2 
66.2 



56.5 
66.5 
59.8 



1980 

762 

1045 

3787 



2496 

743 

3239 



1926 

735 

1022 

3683 



2256 

775 

3031 



97.3 
96.5 
97.8 
97.3 



90.4 
104.3 
93.6 



'by magistrate" may exceed one hundred percent because cases pending on 



123 



Motor Vehicle Cases Disposed Of By Waiver 



Small Claim Cases Disposed Of By Magistrate 







Motor Vehicle 


Per Cent 






Per Cent 




Motor Vehicle 


Cases Disposed Of 


Disposed Of 


Small Claims 


Disposed Of 


Disposed Of 


I7TH DISTRICT 


Cases Filed 


By Waiver 


By Waiver 


Filed 


By Magistrate 


By Magistrate 


Caswell 


2233 


1357 


60.8 


404 


365 


90.3 


Rockingham 


88X3 


5 1 54 


58.0 


1850 


1669 


90.2 


Stokes 


3383 


1953 


57.7 


534 


484 


90.6 


Sum 


6496 


3468 


53.4 


2270 


2503 


110.3 


rOTAL 


20,995 


11,932 


56.8 


5058 


5021 


99.3 


ISTH DISTRICT 














Guilford 














Greensboro 


46041 


26653 


57.9 


9074 


9281 


102.3 


Hiah Point 


10040 


6545 


65.2 


3660 


3670 


100.3 


TOTAL 


56081 


33198 


59.2 


12734 


12951 


101.7 


I9TH DISTRICT 














Cabarrus 


11663 


8630 


74.0 


1084 


1029 


94.9 


Montgomery 


3097 


3243 


104.7 


639 


736 


115.2 


Randolph 


10149 


7653 


75.4 


1050 


951 


90.6 


Row an 


11713 


7661 


65.4 


1923 


1458 


75.8 


TOTAL 


36622 


27187 


74.2 


4696 


4174 


88.9 


20TH DISTRICT 














Anson 


3446 


2916 


84.6 


441 


572 


84.4 


Moore 


4550 


3319 


72.9 


796 


74K 


94.0 


Richmond 


5619 


3541 


63.0 


832 


775 


93.1 


Stanly 


4569 


2943 


64.4 


959 


947 


98.7 


I Inion 


5626 


3687 


65.5 


1368 


1439 


105.2 


TOTAL 


23810 


16406 


68.9 


4396 


4281 


97.4 


2IST DISTRICT 















Forsyth 



32046 



23975 



74.8 



5739 



5362 



93.4 



22ND DISTRICT 






Alexander 


1684 


1294 


Davidson 


11190 


8126 


1 )..'. ie 


3638 


2708 


Iredell 


8095 


5096 


IOI \I. 


24607 


17224 


2 3RD DISTRICT 






Mleghany 


495 


291 


<\she 


1584 


1004 


Wilkes 


5280 


3334 


II 


2771 


2012 


IOI \l 


Htno 


6641 



76.8 
72.6 
74.4 
63.0 
70.0 



58.8 
63.4 
63.1 
72.6 
65.6 



295 


281 


95.3 


1244 


1243 


99.9 


191 


188 


98.4 


2007 


2190 


109.1 


3737 


3902 


104.4 



103 
234 
821 
505 
1663 



94 

140 

601 

514 

1349 



91.3 
59.8 
73.2 
101.8 
81.1 



*For some counties the percent of cases disposed of "by waiver" or "by magistrate" may exceed one hundred percent because cases pending on 
January I, 1976 are not included in the "filed" column. 



124 



Motor Vehicle Cases Disposed Of By Waiver 



Small Claim Cases Disposed Of By Magistrate 



24 Til DISTRICT 

Avery 
Madison 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 
TOTAL. 



Motor Vehicle 
Cases Hied 

1325 

8% 

947 
2992 

1373 ■ 
7533 



Motor Vehicle 

Cases Disposed Of 

By Waiver 

1097 

5X7 

XI3 
2126 
1123 
5746 



Per Cent 

Disposed Of 
By Waiver 

82.8 
65.5 
85.9 
71.1 
81.8 
76.3 



Small Claims 
Filed 

173 
70 
155 
296 
143 
837 



Disposed Of 
By Magistrate 

158 
61 
123 

252 

IX? 
776 



Per Cent 

Disposed Of 

By Magistrate 

91.3 

87.1 
79.4 
85.1 
127.3 
92.7 



25TH DISTRICT 

Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 
TOTAL 



7649 

5632 

8678 

21959 



4561 

3591 

5440 

13592 



59.6 
63.8 
62.7 
61.9 



940 
1039 
1962 
3941 



885 

859 

1777 

3521 



94.1 
82.7 
90.6 
89.3 



26TH DISTRICT 



Mecklenburg 



41775 



30850 



73.8 



15823 



14144 



89.4 



27TH DISTRICT 

Cleveland 
Gaston 
Lincoln 
TOTAL 



8128 
14714 

3315 
26157 



5056 

7855 

1604 

14515 



62.2 
53.4 
48.4 
55.5 



1633 

3090 

577 

5300 



1584 

2299 

504 

4387 



97.0 
74.4 
87.3 
82.8 



28TH DISTRICT 
Buncombe 



15325 



7850 



51.2 



3223 



3304 



102.5 



29TH DISTRICT 

Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

TOTAL 



5601 
4650 
1689 
3838 
2230 
18008 



3262 
4066 
1329 
2565 
1616 
12838 



58.2 
87.4 
78.7 

f,(, x 

72.5 
713 



588 
433 
101 
860 
381 
2363 



517 

<ss 

92 

xx? 

344 

2190 



87.9 
82.0 
91.1 
102.6 
90.3 
92.7 



30TH DISTRICT 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

TOTAL 
GRAND TOTAL 



1929 

834 

605 

4049 

2100 

2439 

1481 

13437 

678,855 



1244 

574 

486 

1966 

1345 

1925 

1026 

8566 

444,513 



64.5 


206 


110 


53.4 


68.8 


60 


59 


98.3 


80.3 


93 


88 


94.6 


48.6 


713 


711 


99.7 


64.0 


I7X 


209 


117.4 


78.9 


123 


127 


103.3 


69.3 


185 


235 


127.0 


63.7 


1558 


1539 


98.8 


65.5 


144,846 


135,918 


93.8 



*For some counties the percent of cases disposed of "by waiver" or "by magistrate" may exceed one hundred percent because cases pending on 
January 1, 1976 are not included in the "filed" column. 



125 



(Prganifational, Admituatratiue, 
Jffiacal Ano limtorg Snformatioti 



"Stfc dcneral AaHemblo. Bh.aU orouioc for an aomuriBtrattue office of 
tlje courts to carrg out tlje prouiBiouB of tl|tB Article" 

N. OL OIonHtitutiou, Art. 31, &ec. 15 



A HISTORICAL NOTE 

From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial system has been the focus of periodic at- 
tention and adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated sequence of critical examina- 
tion, proposals for reform, and finally the enactment of some reform measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a General (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a 
dispute developed over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly conceded to the King the 
right to name the chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint the 
associate justices. Other controversies developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of the 
courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge appoint- 
ments should be for good behavior as against the royal governor's decision for life appointment. State 
historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and the judicial structure in 
the province was grounded on laws enacted by the legislature," which was more familiar with local 
conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between 
periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, 
which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stalemate and 
anarchy after such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate system was framed 
by legislation in 1 767 to last five years. It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement between 
local and royal partisans. As a result, North Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen- 
dence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower'court level during the colonial period, judicial and county government ad- 
ministrative functions were combined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who were appoin- 
ted by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the colonial structure of the court system was 
retained largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the county court which continued 
in use from about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the peace in each county. 
The justices were appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the General Assembly, and 
they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate 
courts of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the county 
court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General Assembly to appoint judges of the 
Supreme Courts of Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized three superior court 
judges and created judicial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of each dis- 
trict twice a year, under a system much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been 
little distinction in terminology between General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, 
the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court were also interchangeable during the period im- 
mediately following the Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems confronting the new State of North Carolina was 
its judiciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused complaint and demands for 
reform." (Lefler and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting judge opinions, and in- 
sufficient number of judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the 
greatest weakness was considered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court 
of Conference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts. This court was continued and 
made permanent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put their opinions in writing to be 
delivered orally in court. The Court of Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in 
1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, 
however, there was still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals from 
cases which they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). 
In 1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme Court was created for review of cases 
decided at the Superior Court level. 

127 



Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each eounty were made mandatory in 1806, 
and the State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges were to sit in rotation, two 

judges constituting a quorum as before. 

The Count\ court of justices of the peace continued during this period as the lowest court and as 
the agency of local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it more democratic were made in 1868. A 
priman holdover from the English legal arrangement the distinction between law and equity 
proceedings was abolished. The County Court's control of local government was abolished. 
Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that 
the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus pre- 
vent crime.'* The membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the selection of the 
justices (including the designation of the chief justice) and superior court judges (raised in number to 
12) w as taken from the legislature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the 
governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the County Court of 
which three justices of the peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities 
were divided between the Superior Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained 
as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of 
Supreme Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. The General Assembly was 
given the power to appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor. Most of the modernizing 
changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial structure it had es- 
tablished continued without systematic modification through more than half of the 20th century. (A 
further constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme 
Court membership to five, and the number of superior court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising demands and to respond to changing needs 
had heavily encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time systematic court reforms were 
proposed in the 1950's. This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court system was most 
evident at the lower, local court level, where hundreds of courts specially created by statute operated 
with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent major reforms was begun, the court system 
in North Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) 
the superior court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts of limited jurisdiction, 
and (d) justices of the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divided into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial 
districts. The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the counties) and the district solicitors 
were paid by the State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and often also a juvenile 
judge, was a county official. There were specialized branches of superior court in some counties for 
matters like domestic relations and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of these local court levels were more than 
180 recorder-type courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, municipal recorder's courts 
and township recorder's courts; the general county courts, county criminal courts and special county 
courts: the domestic relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been established in- 
dividually by special legislative acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created by 
general law across the State since 1919. About half were county courts and half were city or township 
courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and 
sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time, were variously elected or appointed 
locally. 

At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and some 925 justices of the peace. These of- 
ficers had similar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to a $50 fine or 30 days in 
jail. The justices of the peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials were com- 
pensated by the fees they exacted, and they provided their own facilities. 

128 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision of the court system received the attention 
and support of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged the leadership of the North 
Carolina Bar Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was established as an 
agency of the North Carolina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its report, calling for 
reorganization, at the end of 1958. A legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked with the 
Court Study Committee, finished its report early the next year. Both groups called for the structuring 
of an all-inclusive court system which would be directly state-operated, uniform in its organization 
throughout the State and centralized in its administration. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined 
and unified structure. A particularly important part of the proposal was the elimination of the local 
statutory courts and their replacement by a single District Court; the office of justice of the peace was 
to be abolished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would function within the District 
Court as a subordinate judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the 
required three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were reintroduced and approved at the 1961 
session. The Constitutional amendments were approved by popular vote in 1962, and three years later 
the General Assembly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end of 1 970 all of 
the counties and their courts had been incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature was 
symbolized by the name. General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 20th Century judicial 
system as a single, statewide "court," with components for various types and levels of caseload, was 
adapted from North Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the 17th 
Century counties. 

After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has 
continued. In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the creation of an intermediate 
Court of Appeals. It was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to censure or remove 
judges upon the recommendation of a Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of judges, 
persistent efforts have been made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of amendments to the 
State Constitution, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by popular, par- 
tisan vote. The proposed amendments have received the backing of a majority of the members of each 
house, but not the three-fifths required to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. 
It seems likely that this significant issue will be before the General Assembly again for consideration. 

Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp. P. An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 

Hinsdale, C.E. County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome. North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute 
of Government. 

Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information 
Circular 1973. 



129 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 

North Carolina's judicial system is a structure of three tiers known collectively as the General 
Court o( Justice. The three levels correspond to a division of judicial labor within the unified court 
system to accommodate these essential functions: review of cases (Appellate Division); trial of major 
cases (Superior Court Division), and trial of the large volume of minor cases (District Court 
Division). 

Appellate Division 

Supreme Court. At the apex of this judicial structure is the seven-member Supreme Court, which 
sits in Raleigh to review procedural questions and interpretations of the law arising from the lower 
courts. The court's caseload consists of lower court actions involving the death penalty or life im- 
prisonment, substantial constitutional questions, dissent at the Court of Appeals level, utilities rate- 
making decisions, or the exercise of the Supreme's Court own discretionary review. Supreme Court 
justices are elected by popular vote for eight-year terms. 

Court of Appeals. The nine-judge intermediate Court of Appeals sits in panels of three in Raleigh 
and hears the great volume of appeals originating in the State court system. Court of Appeals judges, 
too, are elected for terms of eight years. 

Superior Court Division 

At least two sessions of superior court must be held annually in each county of the state. In 1976, 
there were 48 regular and eight special superior court judges. North Carolina carries the rotation of 
its trial judges to a greater degree than any other state. A regular superior court judge is required to 
rotate through the judicial districts within his geographic quarter of the state, holding court for at 
least six months in each district. Thus, he would hold court for only a half-year every five years or so 
in the district where he has residence. Regular judges are elected for eight-year terms. Special judges 
are appointed by the governor for four-year terms and may be assigned to hold court in any county in 
the state. 

The superior court is a trial court of general jurisdiction, and is the "proper" court for civil cases 
involving more than $5,000 in controversy. The criminal jurisdiction of the superior court extends to 
all felonies and some misdemeanors, including misdemeanor charges that are closely connected with 
felony charges as well as misdemeanor convictions at the district court level which are appealed for a 
new trial in superior court. 

District Court Divison 

This level of the trial court in North Carolina has limited jurisdiction, extending to mis- 
demeanors, and is the proper court for civil cases involving $5,000 or less. The major portion of all 
cases filed in the State's courts is disposed of in the district court division. 

District Court Judges. There were 117 district court judges in 1976, elected to four-year terms. 
District court judges hold court in rotation among the counties in their district. The 30 districts at this 
level of court correspond to the superior court judicial districts. 

For civil cases involving $5,000 or less, the district court is the proper division for trial, which can 
include a jury. In criminal matters, the district court's jurisdiction extends to all misdemeanors and to 
preliminary hearings on felony charges; trial of misdemeanors is without a jury. This court division 
also has jurisdiction of proceedings against juveniles. 

Magistrates. There were more than 500 magistrates in 1976. Magistrates are nominated in each 
county by the clerk of superior court and appointed by the senior resident superior court judge. 
Magistrates are officers of the district court, paid by the state, and in many cases work part-time. 
Their civil jurisdiction includes small claims involving $500 or less. In criminal matters, the magistrate 
tries worthless check cases involving $50 or less, accepts guilty pleas in cases involving no more than a 
$50 fine or 30-day jail sentence, issues warrants and conducts first appearance hearings. 

Other Key Judicial Officials 

District Attorneys. The state is divided into prosecutorial districts that correspond with the 
judicial districts except in the case of the 27th Judicial District, which is divided into prosecutorial 
District 27A and 27B. A district attorney is elected to a four-year term for each of the 31 districts. The 
responsibility of the district attorney and his assistants is to represent the state in criminal and certain 
juvenile matters. The district attorney is responsible for the calendaring of criminal cases. 

130 



Public Defenders. By 1976, the public defender system had been established in five judicial dis- 
tricts (12th, 18th, 26th, 27th, and 28th) for the representation of indigent defendants in criminal mat- 
ters. The assigned private counsel system is used in the other judicial districts. The public defender for 
the 28th district is appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from recommendations by 
the district bar. For the other districts, the appointment is by the governor from recommendations of 
the district bar. Their terms are four years. 

Clerks of Superior Court. The clerk of superior court maintains a system of records for both the 
district and superior courts. Thus, there is one trial court clerk in each county, elected for a four-year 
term. The clerk is also judge of probate and special proceedings. He is authorized to issue warrants 
and accept trial waivers in traffic cases. 

Juvenile Court Counselors. There are from four to 22 juvenile court counselors in each judicial 
district of the state. As part of their "intake" responsibilities, the counselors screen complaints 
regarding children to determine whether petitions should be filed in juvenile court or some other 
means should be used to solve the problem. The counselors also exercise probation responsibility for 
juveniles assigned to counseling within the community, and they provide aftercare supervision for 
children conditionally released from training schools. 



31 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY IN 1976 

Superior Court Judges 

Three training sessions for Superior Court judges were conducted in 1976: ( 1 ) Spring Continuing 
Education Seminar. April 16-18 in Winston-Salem, attended by 37 judges; (2) Annual Meeting of the 
North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges, June 20-23 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, 
attended by 45 judges; and (3) Fall Continuing Education Seminar, held October 22-24 in Asheville, 
attended by 42 judges. 

District Court Judges 

Four training sessions: (1) Annual Conference of the North Carolina Association of District 
Court Judges, June 20-23 in Wrightsville Beach, attended by 70 judges; (2) Two sessions for new 
judges. November 19-20 and December 10-1 1, Institute of Government, Chapel Hill, attended by 25 
new judges: and (3) District Court Judges' Fall Education Seminar, December 17-18, Institute of 
Government, Chapel Hill, attended by 85 judges. 

District Attorneys 

Two training sessions: (1) District Attorneys' Summer Conference, June 21-22, Institute of 
Government, Chapel Hill, attended by 19 district attorneys, 28 assistant district attorneys and one ad- 
ministrative assistant;, and (2) Annual Conference of the North Carolina District Attorneys Associa- 
tion, September 22-25 in Atlantic Beach, attended by 24 district attorneys and 65 assistant district 

attorneys. 

Clerks of Superior Court 

Fourteen training sessions: (1) Annual Conference of the Association of Clerks of Superior 
Court of North Carolina, July 28-31 in Boone, attended by 71 clerks; (2) Twelve training sessions for 
the Revised Data Reporting System in September at Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Elizabeth City, 
Williamston, Jacksonville, Greensboro, Wilkesboro, Waynesville, Asheville, Hickory, Albemarle and 
Fayetteville, with a total of 70 clerks and 220 assistant and deputy clerks attending one session each; 
and (3) Annual Conference of the Association of Assistant and Deputy Clerks of the Superior Court 
of North Carolina, July 21-23 in Wilmington, attended by 215 assistant and deputy clerks. 

Magistrates 

Six training sessions: ( 1 ) Basic Training School for Newly Appointed Magistrates, February 16- 
20. Institute of Government, Chapel Hill, attended by 19 new magistrates; (2) Basic Training School 
for Newly Appointed Magistrates, March 8-12, Institute of Government, Chapel Hill, attended by 16 
new magistrates; (3) Basic Training School for Newly Appointed Magistrates, April 5-9 in Asheville, 
attended by 25 new magistrates; (4) Spring Meeting of the North Carolina Magistrates Association, 
May 10-12 in Wrightsville Beach, attended by 52 magistrates; (5) Basic Training School for Newly 
Appointed Magistrates, August 2-6, Institute of Government, Chapel Hill, attended by 20 new 
magistrates, and (6) Fall Meeting of the North Carolina Magistrates Association, October 11-13 in 
Burlington, attended by 40 magistrates. 

Juvenile Court Counselors 

Nineteen training sessions: (1) Three regional Intake Counselors Training Sessions, held in 
January at Greensboro, Raleigh and Greenville, and attended by a total of 34 counselors; (2) Court 
Counselor Trainee Orientation Session, March 1-2 in Raleigh, attended by 31 counselor 
trainees: (3) Chief Court Counselors 1 Planning and Information System Training Session, June 16- 
18 in Raleigh, attended by 28 chief court counselors; (4) Managerial Training for Chief Court Coun- 
selors, August 30-September 1 in Raleigh, attended by 30 chief court counselors and 5 supervisory 
court counselors; (5) Court Counselor Trainee Orientation Sessions, September 8-9 in Rocky 
Mount, attended by 15 counselor trainees; (6) Four regional Family Therapy Training Sessions for 
Court Counselors and Trainees, held in September at Greenville, Statesville, Asheville and Durham, 
and attended by 154 counselors and 15 trainees; (7) Two sessions of Intake Counselor Training, in 
September at Raleigh, attended by a total of 42 intake counselors; (8) Intake Counselor Training, 
November 8-10 in Durham, attended by 40 intake counselors; and (9) Four regional sessions for 
Counselors and Trainees, held in November and December at Salisbury, Apex, Kinston and 



32 



Boone, and attended by 158 counselors and 20 trainees. In addition, tuition and registration fees were 
paid for 49 juvenile services personnel to attend college courses, educational workshops and 
educational conferences. 

Out of State Education 

Thirty-eight persons from all parts of the judicial system participated in courses of professionally 
related study outside North Carolina in 1976. 



33 



THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN 1976 

The Judicial Council was established by statute in 1949. Its work centers on making recommen- 
dations to the General Assembly or the courts on changing the law or the structure and operation of 
the administration of justice in North Carolina. It is charged with making a continuing evaluation of 
the court system and receiving suggestions or criticism about the administration of justice. In recent 
\ears. the studies and recommendations of the Judicial Council have been confined principally to 
specific changes in criminal law and procedure, especially as suggested or required by court decisions. 
\ feu civil matters have also been considered. 

Representatives from all levels of court, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and the General 
Assembly make up the Council, which met four times in 1976. Eight proposed bills were recom- 
mended during this year. These proposals would have the effect of: 

(1) Setting up sentencing procedures in capital cases, including the imposition of the death 
penalty, which would meet the requirements set out by the U.S. Supreme Court, although the Council 
made no recommendation on the actual question of retaining or abolishing the death penalty. 

(2) Prohibiting picketing and demonstrations near courthouses. 

(3) Expanding the authority of a trial judge to move a civil case, like a criminal case, to another 
count) in the same judicial district or another county in an adjacent district, to ensure a fair trial. 

(4) Providing that indigent parties in a proceeding for the termination of parental rights may, in 
the court's discretion, secure court-appointed and state-paid counsel. 

(5) Allowing the superior court judge to dismiss frivolous petitions calling for the removal of dis- 
trict attorneys. 

(6) Removing the authority of a judge to order a confiscated weapon turned over to a law en- 
forcement agency for its own use. 

(7) Repealing the habitual offender article of the motor vehicle law. 

(8) Limiting dissemination of reports filed by medical experts on a defendant's capacity to 
proceed to trial. 



34 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION IN 1976 

The Judicial Standards Commission was established by the General Assembly pursuant to a con- 
stitutional amendment approved by the voters at the general election in November, 1972. The mem- 
bership consists of a Court of Appeals judge, a superior court judge, and a district court judge, each 
appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; two members of the State Bar, elected by the 
State Bar Council; and two citizens who are not judges nor members of the State Bar, appointed by 
the Governor. The Court of Appeals judge serves as chairman of the Commission. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may censure or remove any 
justice or judge for wilful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to perform his duties, 
habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. Upon recommendation of the 
Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any justice or judge for mental or physical incapacity 
interfering with the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to become, permanent. 

During 1976, the Judicial Standards Commission met on the following dates. All meetings of the 
Commission were held in Raleigh. 

February 5-6, 1976 August 27, 1976 

April 2, 1976 November 12, 1976 

June 3, 1976 December 16-17, 1976 
July 29, 1976 

A complaint or other information against a judge, whether filed with the Commission or by ac- 
tion of the Commission on its own motion, is denominated by the Commission as an "Inquiry Con- 
cerning a Judge." There were 61 "Inquiries Concerning a Judge" during 1976 including three in- 
quiries carried over from 1975. 

Forty one of these inquiries were determined by the Judicial Standards Commission to involve 
subject matter not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

Seven inquiries were determined by the Commission to involve subject matter within the jurisdic- 
tion of the Commission, but which did not warrant investigation. 

Thirteen inquiries were determined by the Commission to require preliminary investigation. In 
five inquiries the investigation was completed and the Commission determined that no further action 
was justified. Investigation was completed in one inquiry but the subject judge accepted a reprimand 
from the Commission in lieu of a formal hearing on the charges. There were two inquiries in which 
the investigation was completed and a formal hearing was conducted, and a recommendation of cen- 
sure was filed with the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Investigation was completed in five in- 
quiries, which await final determination by the Commission. 



[35 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS IN 1976 

Statutory Responsibilities of the Office 

The statute establishing the Administrative Office of the Courts sets out ten major duties for the 
director, who is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They are the following: 

Determine the state of the dockets and evaluate the practices and procedures of the courts, and 
make recommendations concerning the number of judges, district attorneys, and magistrates required 
for the efficient administration of justice. 

Prescribe uniform administrative and business methods, systems, forms and records to be used 
in the offices of the clerks of superior court. 

Prepare and submit budget estimates of state appropriations necessary for the maintenance 
and operation of the Judicial Department, and authorize expenditures from funds appropriated for 
these purposes. 

Investigate, make recommendations concerning, and assist in the securing of adequate 
physical accommodations for the General Court of Justice. 

Procure, distribute, exchange, transfer, and assign such equipment, books, forms and supplies 
as are to be acquired with state funds for the General Court of Justice. 

- Make recommendations for the improvement of the operations of the Judicial Department. 

Assist the Chief Justice in performing duties relating to the transfer of district court judges for 
temporary or specialized duty. 

-Collect and compile statistical data and other information on thejudicial and financial opera- 
tion of the courts and on the operation of other offices directly related to and serving the courts. 

Prepare and submit an annual report on the work of the Judicial Department to the Chief 
Justice, and transmit a copy to each member of the General Assembly. 

Perform such additional duties and exercise such additional powers as may be prescribed by 
statute or assigned by the Chief Justice. 

The director is given, by statute, responsibility for the supervision of publicly funded legal 
defense programs for indigent criminal defendants, and supervision of the juvenile services programs 
(juvenile probation and aftercare) funded by the State. The assistant director, as administrative assis- 
tant to the Chief Justice, aids the Chief Justice in the assignment of superior court judges, preparation 
of calendars for superior court trial sessions, and on such other duties as are assigned by the Chief 
Justice. 

Reorganization of the AOC Staff 

In January of 1976 the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts consolidated respon- 
sibility for the principal functions of the office into five staff divisions. Supervision of each of the five 
newly consolidated divisions of the Office was vested in a staff officer, who reports to the director. 

As reorganized, the divisions of the Administrative Office of the Courts consist of the following: 

(1) Fiscal Management Division, with the controller assuming responsibility for puchasing, in- 
cluding the warehousing and printing operations, in addition to the fiscal duties. 

(2) Juvenile Services Division, whose responsibility for the administration of juvenile counseling 

services throughout the state was not changed. 

(3) Office of Counsel, with the additional responsibility of supervising services to the clerks of 

superior court. 

(4) Personnel Division, whose responsibilities were unchanged. 

(5) Research and Planning Division, which was assigned responsibility for information systems 
development, Judicial Department education coordination, and federal grants (LEAA) administra- 
tion in addition to the previous planning function. 

136 



Fiscal Management Division The management and supervision of fiscal affairs for the Judicial 
Department is the responsibility of this division. The fiscal function extends to budgeting, disbursing 
including payrolls, receiving funds, reporting, accounting, auditing, purchasing, printing, warehous- 
ing and supply. 

One of the major tasks is to prepare the budget requests and to administer the expenditures and 
provide accountability for the State appropriations which were approximately 43 million dollars in 
1975-76. During the period of February 26 through June 30, 1976, the Governor implemented 
"spending limitations" for all State departments and agencies due to a decline in general fund 
revenue. The Department met its stated reduction in expenditures by developing adjustments in cer- 
tain areas and focusing its attention on priorities. 

In response to statutory requirements and authority, this division establishes the procedures and 
regulations for the collection, deposit, accountability and reporting of all funds belonging to the State 
of North Carolina that come into the Judicial Department. Revenue in excess of 16 million dollars 
was deposited in the general fund for 1975-76. In addition it prescribes the policies, rules and regula- 
tions for the collection, deposit, accountability and disbursement of all other funds that come into the 
court system. It supervises, assists and monitors the operations. A uniform accounting system is 
provided in the office of the Clerk of Superior Court in each of the 100 counties of the State. The 
Clerks administer these funds within the prescribed policies and regulations. 

This division is responsible for the printing of all forms utilized in the court system and the dis- 
tribution thereof throughout the State. Within its approval authority it procures equipment and sup- 
plies for all personnel and provides for all other necessary operational items and services. An inven- 
tory of supplies and forms are warehoused to meet the needs on a timely and efficiennt basis. 

Juvenile Services Division. This division administers the statewide juvenile court counselor 
program for children alleged, and those adjudicated, to be delinquent or undisciplined. Services in- 
clude intake (pre-hearing studies of children alleged to be delinquent or undisciplined), probation 
(supervision within the community for adjudicated children who have not been committed to training 
school), and aftercare (supervision within the community for children conditionally released from the 
training schools). Among the major accomplishments of the Juvenile Services Division in 1976 was 
the establishment of uniform personnel evaluation procedures, a statewide training program for all 
division personnel, and extension of the intake program to all judicial districts in the state. 

Office of Counsel. In addition to providing legal advisory service to administrative personnel in 
the Judicial Department, a principal duty of this division is to aid in translating new legislation into 
appropriate record-keeping procedures and printed forms for the clerks of superior court and for 
other Judicial Department officials. The administrator for clerks' services and his field staff are in this 
division. They monitor record-keeping procedures in the clerks' offices located in the 100 counties, 
develop recommendations for improved clerk office management, and provide special assistance 
where that is required from time to time. The administrator for clerks' services also reviews issues of 
staffing adequacy in the clerks' offices and provides recommendations to the Personnel Division. A 
major accomplishment in 1976 was the implementation of new procedures for the clerks' offices for 
keeping records pertaining to child support cases. 

Personnel Division. This division provides the personnel administration and analysis of staffing 
requirements for the Judicial Department, which has approximately 3,000 employees across the state. 
In 1976, studies of the offices of the Supreme Court Clerk, the Court of Appeals Clerk and 22 clerks 
of superior court were made, to assure that all personnel positions were properly classified. In addi- 
tion, some preliminary staff work was done to proceed with similar studies of the clerk offices in 34 
additional counties, which are to be conducted during the coming year. 

Research and Planning Division. This division is organized around four major functions: 
judicial planning, information systems development, coordination of judicial department education 
activity, and LEAA grants administration. In the planning section, a series of reports was produced 
showing the ratios of superior and district court judges, district attorney staffs, clerk of superior court 
staffs, and magistrates to population and caseload in all of the counties and judicial districts. A 
statewide study of county courthouses was designed and implementation of the study project got un- 
derway under contract with the School of Design, North Carolina State University. An analysis and 
report on present and future facilities needs in Raleigh for the Appellate Division was completed. In 
the information systems section, a revised case data reporting system was designed and implemented, 

137 



to improve the quality, timeliness and detail of case statistical information at the trial court levels. 
Significant among the benefits of this revised system, under which the clerks report the case number 
and date of each case filed and disposed of, is information on the ages of pending cases. A new 
juvenile services data reporting system on intake and aftercare services was also developed in 1976. In 
other significant activity, the Administrative Office of the Courts joined with other State criminal 
justice agencies in a contract funded under the LEAA program, to obtain consultant assistance in the 
design of a statewide automated criminal justice information system. As part of its responsibility for 
judicial department education activity in 1976, the Research and Planning Division completed a report 
reviewing past education and training activities conducted for court-related personnel and including 
recommendations for an ongoing program of educational activity for Judicial Department personnel. 
The LEAA grants management section completed applications for 21 projects to be funded under the 
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration program. Of these, 18 project applications were ap- 
proved, for a total of $1,703,982 in grants. Among projects thus funded during the year were the 
county courthouse facilities study, continuation of planning and design of a court information 
system, and continuance of the juvenile intake program. 



138 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION 
FROM THE GENERAL FUND 

(For Fiscal Year, July 1, 1975-June30, 1976) 

Appropriations from the State's General Fund for operating expenses for all departments and 
agencies of state government, including the Judicial Department, totalled $1,756,230,449 for the 
1975-76 fiscal year. (Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropriations from the General 
Fund for capital improvements are not included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 
fiscal year 1975-76 was $42,914,418, or 2.4% of the total General Fund appropriations for operating 
expenses of all state departments and agencies. 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

APPROPRIATION 

$42,914,418 



139 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 

( For Fiscal Year July 1 , 1975 - June 30, 1976) 



Total expenditures for operating expenses of the Judicial Department during the 1975-76 fiscal 
year were S41.025.903. These expenditures were divided among the major budget classifications as 
follows: 



Supreme Court 

Court of Appeals 

Superior Courts 

(This classification includes district attorneys, assistant 
district attorneys, court reporters as well as judicial 

personnel.) 

District Courts 

(This classification includes magistrates and district 
court reporters as well as judicial personnel.) 

Clerks of Superior Court 

(This classification includes all 100 clerks and their staffs 
juror fees, witness fees, and support services such as supplies 
postage, telephone expense, office equipment for all local 
Judicial Department personnel.) 

Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 

Indigent Legal Defense: 
Counsel Fees 
Public Defenders 

Special Counsel in mental hospitals 
Support services (transcripts, records, briefs) 

Total Indigent Legal Defense 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Judicial Standards Commission 

Judicial Council 



Amount 
$ 793,523 
722,542 
7,142,838 



7,997,648 



14,884,838 



3,737,468 



Percentage 
ofTotal 

1.9% 

1.7% 
17.5% 



19.5% 



36.3% 



9.1% 



3,786,773 

741,464 

99,661 

216,846 


9.2% 
1.8% 

.2% 
.5% 


4,844,745 


11.7% 


896,925 


2.2% 


4,627 


.01% 


745 


.002% 



ADMINISIRAIIVI OF h l( I 

cm nil ( oiirts : :■; 




->. COURT OT ARPI Al S I 7"! 
-»■ SUPRKMI < oliRl I '>"; 



I A I ( OUNI II 002": 
Al STANDARDS ( (1MMISMON 011 



ICVINIII I'KOIIA IIIlN AND Al II R( AIM 9.1'! 



140 



EXPENDITURES FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS 

( For Fiscal Year, July 1, 1975 - June 30, 1976) 

The State furnishes legal counsel for indigent persons in a variety of actions and proceedings, as 
provided in G.S. 7A-450 et. seq. These include indigent defendants in criminal proceedings, indigents 
in judicial hospitalization proceedings, juveniles in proceedings that may result in commitment to an 
institution or transfer to superior court for trial on a felony, and certain other proceedings involving 
the mentally ill or mentally retarded. Representation of indigents may be by assignment of private 
counsel or by assignment of public counsel or a public defender. 

Five of North Carolina's judicial districts have an office of public defender to represent indigents 
in criminal cases. These are the 12th, 18th, 26th, 27th, and 28th districts. The other 25 districts utilize 
only assignment of private counsel. 

The cost of the entire program of indigent representation dropped from $5,029,018.62 in the 
1974-75 fiscal year, to $4,844,745.89 in the 1975-76 fiscal year, a decrease of 3.7%. The total amount 
expended for representation of indigents was 11.8% of total Judicial Department expenditures in 
1975-76. These costs are summarized below: 

Assigned counsel in criminal cases $3,351,550.09 

Assigned counsel in commitment cases 293,855.79 

Assigned counsel in juvenile cases 141,367.15 

Total $3,786,773.03 

Special counsel, mental hospitals 99,661.78 

Public Defender's Office 

12th Judicial District $152,897.20 

1 8th Judicial District 220,754.59 

26th Judicial District 155,574.71 

27th Judicial District 101,902.26 

28th Judicial District 110,336.15 

Total $741,464.91 
Transcripts, records and briefs 2 1 5,47 1.17 
Expert witness fees 1,375.00 

Grand Total $4,844,745.89 

Payments for assigned counsel in criminal cases accounted for 88.5% of total expenditures for 
assigned counsel, commitment case payments accounted for 3.7%, and juvenile case payments for 
7.8% 

Assignment of private counsel is also utilized in those districts which have an office of public 
defender. The total cost of providing counsel to indigents in criminal cases in those districts is sum- 
marized as follows: 

12th District 18th District 26th District 27th District 28th District 

Public Defender $152,897 $220,755 $155,575 $101,902 $110,336 

Assigned Counsel 64,948 37,365 280,774 98,186 11,784 

TOTAL $217,845 $258,120 $436,349 $200,088 $122,120 

When private counsel or the public defender is assigned to represent an indigent in a criminal 
case, the trial court sets the money value of services rendered and enters judgment against the defend- 
ent for such amount. Receipts from payments on these judgments rose form $154,614.60 in 1974-75 to 
$183,805.02 in 1975-76. 

The following table compares the number of assigned counsel cases and expenditures in each 
county for 1974-75 and 1975-76. The total number of cases dropped from 32,423 in 1974-75 to 30,234 
in 1975-76, a decrease of 6.7%; and total expenditures dropped from $4,281,625 in 1974-75 to 
$3,786,773 in 1975-76, a decrease of 11.6%. 

141 



ASSIGNED C OINSEL — CRIMINAL CASES 





Number of Cases 


Percent 
Increase (decrease) 


E 


ipcnditures 


Percent 


757" DISTRICT 


1974-75 1^75-76 


1974-75 


1975-76 


Increase (decrease) 


Camden 


7 17 


142.8 


514 


1,624 


215.9 


Chowan 


90 88 


(2.2) 


13,532 


1 1 ,964 


(11.6) 


Currituck 


73 55 


(24.6) 


8,874 


7,799 


(12.1) 


Dare 


46 86 


86.9 


7,979 


13,913 


74.4 


Gates 


25 26 


4.0 


3,222 


3,293 


2.2 


Pasquotank 


185 172 


(7.0) 


20,184 


23,271 


15.3 


Perquimans 


45 48 


6.7 


6,920 


8,630 


24.7 


rOTAL 


471 492 


44 


61,225 


70,494 


15.1 


2ND DISTRICT 












Beaufort 


169 229 


35.5 


30,485 


3 1 ,088 


2.0 


Hyde 


17 16 


(5.9) 


2,050 


1,382 


(32.6) 


Martin 


162 166 


2.5 


22,090 


24,958 


13.0 


Tyrrell 


16 18 


12.5 


1,236 


1,680 


35.9 


Wjshineton 


66 68 


3.0 


6,713 


8,464 


26.1 


TOTAL 


430 497 


15.6 


62,574 


67,572 


8.0 


3RD DISTRICT 












Carteret 


311 343 


7.1 


42,636 


35,365 


(17.0) 


Craven 


408 437 


7 1 


50,610 


54,325 


7.3 


Pamlico 


40 40 





5,178 


3,882 


(25.0) 


Pitt 


873 814 


(6.7) 


116,864 


102,910 


(11.9) 


TOTAL 


1,632 1634 


.12 


215,288 


196,482 


(8.7) 


4TH DISTRICT 












Duplin 


390 299 


(23.3) 


38,825 


32,250 


(16.9) 


Jones 


111 76 


(31.5) 


12,050 


8,544 


(29.1) 


Onslow 


851 763 


(10.3) 


115,159 


97,990 


(14.9) 


Sampson 


307 260 


(15.3) 


30,471 


25,158 


(17.4) 


TOTAL 


1,659 1318 


(15.7) 


196,505 


163,942 


(16.6) 


5TH DISTRICT 












New Hanover 


575 599 


4.2 


118,861 


109,416 


(7.9) 


Pender 


109 103 


(5.5) 


13,365 


18,390 


37.6 


TOTAL 


684 702 


18.0 


132.226 


127,806 


(3.3) 


6TH DISTRICT 












Bertie 


128 156 


21.9 


12,114 


13,550 


11.8 


Halifax 


316 343 


8.5 


37,261 


32,656 


(12.3) 


Hertford 


137 188 


37.2 


17,075 


18,760 


9.9 


Northampton 


72 102 


41.7 


7,982 


9,319 


16.7 


TOTAL 


653 789 


20.8 


74,632 


74485 


(.46) 


7TH DISTRICT 












Edgecombe 


390 495 


26.9 


47,188 


53,417 


13.2 


Nash 


362 408 


12.7 


58,472 


49,286 


(15.7) 


Vv ilson 


381 395 


3.7 


50,619 


56,217 


111 


TOTAL 


1,133 1.298 


14.6 


156,279 


158,920 


1.7 



142 









ASSIGNED COUNSEL 


-CRIMINAL CASES 






Nurr 


ber of Cases 


Percent 
Increase (decrease) 


E> 


^penditures 


Percent 


8TH DISTRICT 


1974-75 


1975-76 


1974-75 


1975-76 


Increase (decrease) 


Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 
TOTAL 


53 
305 
443 
801 


62 
332 
422 
816 


17.0 
9.2 

(4.7) 
1.9 


9,569 

44,776 

90,342 

144,687 


14,671 

42,773 

72,860 

130,304 


53.3 

(4.5) 

(19.3) 

(9.9) 


9TH DISTRICT 














Franklin 
Granville 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 
TOTAL 


183 

250 
111 
2X5 
97 
926 


175 
197 
160 

329 
121 
982 


(4.4) 
(21.2) 
44.1 
15.4 
24.7 
6.0 


27,682 
24,219 
15,570 
31,417 
14.23? 
113,120 


26,313 
18,782 
21,792 
36,810 
15 372 
1 19,069 


(4.9) 

(22.4) 

40.0 

17.2 

8.0 

5.2 


IOTH DISTRICT 














Wake 


2,243 


2,097 


(6.5) 


296,187 


265,245 


(10.4) 


NTH DISTRICT 














Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 
TOTAL 


268 
239 
162 
669 


183 

456 

!57 
7% 


(31.7) 
92.0 
(3.1) 
19.0 


32,320 
30,081 
23,381 
85,782 


20,976 
43,658 
16,703 
81337 


(35.1) 
45.1 

(28.6) 
(5.2) 


12TH DISTRICT 












• 


Cumberland 
Hoke 
TOTAL 


266 

17 

283 


286 

13 

299 


7.5 

(23.5) 

5.6 


78,870 

6,390 

85,260 


59,818 

5,130 

64,948 


(24.1) 
(19.7) 
(23.8) 


I3TH DISTRICT 














Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 
TOTAL 


198 

184 
312 
694 


153 
1X1 
271 
605 


(22.7) 

(16) 

(13.1) 

(12.8) 


26,250 
20,559 
34,152 
80,961 


20,195 
25,088 
34,475 
79,758 


(23.1) 

22.0 

.94 

(1.5) 


NTH DISTRICT 















Durham 



1357 



1,689 



8.5 



25,731 



206,782 



(4.1) 



15TH DISTRICT 



Alamance 


545 


539 


(1.1) 


82,067 


83,494 


1.7 


Chatham 


104 


98 


(5.8) 


14,780 


14,629 


(1.0) 


Orange 


411 


429 


44 


56,689 


55,991 


(1.2) 


TOTAL 


1,060 


1,066 


(.57) 


153,491 


154,114 


.41 


16TH DISTRICT 















Robeson 
Scotland 
TOTAL 



404 
130 
534 



Ml 


31.4 


76,748 


79,508 


3.6 


207 


59.2 


17,707 


28,607 


61.6 


738 


38.2 


94,455 


108,155 


14.5 



143 











ASSIGNED COUNSEL 


— CRIMINAL 


CASES 






Nurr 


ber of C 


ises 


Percent 
Increase (decrease) 


E) 


ipenditures 


Percent 


l'TH DISTRICT 


1^^4-75 




1475-76 


1974-75 




1975-76 


Increase (decrease) 


Caswell 


i 12 




14S 


32.1 


1 5,044 




16,319 


8.5 


Rockingham 


635 




563 


(11.3) 


93,302 




69,036 


(26.0) 


Stokes 


1 12 




90 


(I'tfO 


13,421 




8,273 


(38.3) 


Sum 


379 




476 


25.6 


51,776 




57,193 


10.5 


TOTAL 


1,238 




1,277 


3.1 


173.543 




150,821 


13.1 


18TH DISTRICT 



















Guilford 



216 



158 



(26.8) 



54,295 



37,365 



(31.2) 



19TH DISTRICT 



Cabarrus 


693 


625 


(9.8) 


67,169 


64,395 


(4.1) 


Montgomery 


319 


234 


(26.6) 


29,632 


29,642 


.03 


Randolph 
Ross an 


339 


333 


(1.8) 


34,959 


31,474 


(10.0) 


640 


702 


9.7 


67,216 


62,814 


(6.5) 


TOTAL 


1,991 


1,894 


(4.9) 


198,976 


188,325 


(5.4) 


20TH DISTRICT 














Anson 


234 


203 


(13.2) 


23,202 


20,313 


(12.4) 


Moore 


232 


260 


12.1 


26,742 


26,065 


(2.5) 


Richmond 


308 


316 


2.6 


38,205 


34,919 


(8.6) 


Stanls 


268 


300 


11.9 


29,109 


29,281 


.60 


Union 


372 


346 


(7.0) 


53,315 


38,196 


(28.3) 


TOTAL 


1,414 


1,425 


.78 


170,573 


148,774 


(12.8) 


21ST DISTRICT 















Forssth 



1,502 



1,584 



5.4 



208,291 



200,753 



(3.6) 



22SD DISTRICT 



Alexander 


180 


153 


(15.0) 


23,534 


14,369 


(35.9) 


Davidson 


528 


466 


(11.7) 


66,724 


51,601 


(22.7) 


Das ie 


105 


no 


4.8 


10,389 


10,301 


(.85) 


Iredell 


480 


492 


2.5 


56,469 


52,648 


(6.8) 


TOTAL 


1,293 


1,221 


(5.6) 


157,116 


128,919 


(17.9) 


23RD DISTRICT 














Alleghany 


-4 


41 


(24.1) 


8,797 


2,465 


(72.0) 


Ashe 


120 


72 


(40.0) 


12,642 


7,057 


(44.2) 


Wilkes 


276 


)06 


10.9 


32,406 


32,184 


(.68) 


Yadkin 


86 


88 


2.3 


9,835 


7,279 


(26.0) 


IOI \L 


536 


507 


(5.4) 


63,680 


48,985 


(23.1) 


24TH DISTRICT 














Aver) 


i 19 


115 


(3.4) 


12,100 


1 5,044 


24.3 


M .i<ii ;on 


75 


69 


(8.0) 


7,266 


12,065 


66.0 


Mitchell 


47 


45 


(4.2) 


4,146 


3,484 


(16.0) 


•'■ 


157 


147 


(6.4) 


20, 1 50 


17,440 


(13.4) 


i 


63 


53 


(15.9) 


6,430 


3,599 


(44.0) 


IOI \l 


461 


1429 


(6.9) 


50,092 


51,632 


3.1 



144 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL — CRIMINAL CASES 





Numbo 


of Cases 


Percent 
Increase (decrease) 


E> 


;penditures 


Percent 


25TH DISTRICT 


1974-75 


1975-76 


1974-75 


1975-76 


Increase (decrease) 


Burke 


695 


44 1 


(36.5) 


84,733 


64,809 


(23.5) 


Caldwell 


546 


374 


(31.5) 


72,703 


55,030 


(24.3) 


Catawba 


753 


562 


(25.4) 


93,532 


74,791 


(20.0) 


TOTAL 


1,994 


1,377 


(30.9) 


250,968 


194,630 


(22.4) 


26TH DISTRICT 














Mecklenburg 


3,226 


2,023 


(37.3) 


363,870 


280,774 


(22.8) 


27TH DISTRICT 














Cleveland 


282 


132 


(53.2) 


38,080 


19,704 


(48.2) 


Gaston 


944 


420 


(55.5) 


146,083 


59,265 


(59.4) 


Lincoln 


197 


66 


(66.5) 


35,529 


19,217 


(45.9) 


TOTAL 


1,423 


618 


(56.6) 


219,692 


98,186 


(55.3) 


28 TH DISTRICT 














Buncombe 


82 


75 


(8.5) 


15,394 


11,784 


(23.4) 


29TH DISTRICT 














Henderson 


313 


304 


(2.9) 


36,301 


24,849 


(31.5) 


McDowell 


248 


292 


17.7 


26,195 


28,221 


7.7 


Polk 


45 


70 


55.6 


4,708 


5,717 


21.4 


Rutherford 


301 


324 


7.6 


40,239 


31,008 


(22.9) 


Transylvania 


95 


122 


28.4 


13,505 


8,908 


(34.0) 


TOTAL 


1,002 


1,112 


11.0 


120,948 


98,703 


(18.4) 


30TH DISTRICT 














Cherokee 


97 


104 


7.2 


10,973 


14,707 


34.0 


Clay 


24 


27 


12.5 


2,435 


3,497 


43.6 


Graham 


56 


37 


(33.9) 


8,497 


4,287 


(49.5) 


Haywood 


252 


277 


9.9 


22,742 


30,407 


33.7 


Jackson 


91 


76 


(16.5) 


9,405 


15,308 


62.8 


Macon 


S9 


59 





9,046 


4,458 


(50.7) 


Swain 


37 


56 


51.3 


2,831 


5,266 


86.0 


TOTAL 


616 


636 


3.2 


65,929 


77,930 


18.2 


GRAND TOTAL 


32,423 


30,234 


(6.7) 


4,281,625 


3,786,773 


(116) 



145 



SPECIAL COUNSEL REPRESENTATION 
OF THE INDIGENT MENTALLY ILL AND INEBRIATE 





January 1 


1976- 


- December 31 


,1976 










Number o 


f 180-Day 


Number of 1-Year 




Number of 90-Day 


Recommitment 


Recommitment 




Hearings 


Hearings 


Hearings 




Com- 


Dis- 


Recom- 


Dis- 


Recom- Dis- 


Hospital 


mitted charged 


mitted 


charged 


mitted charged 


Broughton 


395 


744 


199 


87 


426 80 


Cherry 


959 


326 


195 


14 


451 3 


Dorothea Dix 


455 


536 


153 


130 


532 15 


John Umstead 


151 


199 


108 


16 


236 3 


TOTAL 


1,960 


1,805 


655 


247 


1,645 101 


Total Number of Commitment and Recommitment Hearings: 






90-Day Hearings 






3,765 






180-Day Recommitment Hearings 




902 






1-Year Recommitment Hearings 




1,746 






Grand Total 






6,413 






Total Number of Hearings 


Resulting in 










Order of Commitment 


or Recommitment 


4,260 






Total Number of Hearings 


Resulting in 










Order of Discharge 






2,153 







TOTAL 6,413 



146 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS 

( For Fiscal Year, July 1 , 1975 - June 30, 1976) 

During the 1975-76 fiscal year the Judicial Department had receipts from court operations total- 
ling $39,267,105.89. The categories of receipts and the government unit to which the funds were dis- 
tributed are shown below. 

Superior and District Court Fees (State) $16,143,014.16 

Supreme Court Fees (State) 13,412.90 

Court of Appeals Fees (State) 16,707.80 

Sale of appellate reports (State) 86, 1 24.42 
Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund (State) 2,284,346.00 

Total State Receipts $ 1 8,543,605.28 

Facilities Fees (Counties) $ 3,250,204.00 

Officer Fees (Counties) 1,326,721.58 

Jail Fees (Counties) 441,516.03 

Fines and Forfeitures (Counties) 14,917,907.14 

Total County Receipts $19,936,348.75 

Facilities Fees (Municipalities) 1 73, 1 37.00 

Officer Fees (Municipalities) 579,980.36 

Jail Fees (Municipalities) 34,034.50 

Total Municipal Receipts $787, 151.86 

Grand Total All Receipts $ 39,267,105.89 

Of the total of all Judicial Department receipts, 50.7% was distributed to the counties, 41.4% to 
the State General Fund, 5.8% to the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund, and 
2.1% to municipalities. The following table shows the amount of fees distributed to each county and 
to municipalities within each county. 



147 



AMOUNTS OF FEES, FINES AND FORFEITURES COLLECTED AND DISTRIBUTED 
TO COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES 

FISCAL YEAR 1975-76 





Facility Fees 


Officer Fees 


Jail Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Officer Fees 


Jail Fees 




County 


County 

S 55.432.00 


County 


County 

S 4,339.00 


County 

$ 207,076.26 


Municipality 

$ -0- 


Municipality 

$ 12,108.00 


Municipality 

$ -0- $ 


Total 


Alamance 


$ 21.575.00 


300,530.26 


Alexander 


8.644.00 


4.502.00 


2,319.00 


40,133.70 


-0- 


138.00 


-0- 


55,736.70 


Alleghany 


3.371.00 


1.180.00 


783.00 


1 1 ,049.00 


-0- 


62.00 


-0- 


16,445.00 


Anson 


16,924.00 


8.648.00 


1,929.00 


67,548.70 


-0- 


1,142.00 


-0- 


96,191.70 


Ashe 


8.060.00 


5,474.00 


1,687.00 


36,485.70 


0- 


74.00 


-0- 


51,780.70 


Avery 


8,426.00 


7,570.62 


2,127.00 


45,181.00 


-0- 


140.00 


-0- 


63,444.62 


Beaufort 


27,550.00 


16.720.00 


3,082.00 


130,904.50 


-0- 


3,367.00 


-0- 


181,623.50 


Bertie 


13,204.00 


9,833.00 


2,413.00 


65,185.00 


-0- 


332.00 


37.00 


91,004.00 


Bladen 


22,279.00 


14,847.21 


4,807.00 


101,105.50 


2,172.00 


1,176.00 


-0- 


146,386.71 


Brunswick 


15.285.00 


7,403.00 


2,834.94 


96,056.20 


2,887.00 


890.00 


-0- 


125,356.14 


Buncombe 


85.298.00 


43,334.50 


18,687.50 


344,723.54 


-0- 


15,756.00 


-0- 


507,799.54 


Burke 


34,708.00 


14,746.00 


2,212.00 


166,534.12 


0- 


3,020.00 


28.00 


221,248.12 


Cabarrus 


51,647.00 


30,430.43 


6,934.00 


171,488.17 


-0- 


3,149.00 


-0- 


263,648.60 


Caldwell 


32,335.00 


11,857.00 


5,376.00 


142,462.01 


-0- 


4,391.00 


56.00 


196,477.01 


Camden 


4,988.00 


2,610.00 


380.00 


32,738.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


40,716.00 


Carteret 


25,142.00 


11,470.00 


2,722.00 


184,043.25 


-0- 


3,112.00 


-0- 


226,489.25 


Caswell 


9.717.0 


6,814.00 


1,322.00 


33,436.78 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


51,289.78 


Catauba 


28.968.70 


15,936.00 


5,923.00 


239,620.82 


25,075.00 


10,196.00 


4,570.00 


330,289.52 


Chatham 


16,089.00 


13,182.00 


2,061.00 


97,083.05 


5,893.00 


1,420.00 


556.00 


136,284.05 


Cherokee 


9,296.00 


4,467.00 


3,858.00 


73,129.74 


-0- 


678.00 


140.00 


91,568.74 


Chowan 


8.685.00 


3,530.00 


1,078.00 


43,966.00 


-0- 


1,780.00 


-0- 


59,039.00 


Clay 


3,924.00 


2,587.00 


75 1 .00 


29,674.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


36,936.00 


Cleveland 


39,774.50 


14,607.00 


11,341.00 


187,013.68 


-0- 


6,815.00 


611.00 


260,162.18 


Columbus 


31,496.00 


22,713.00 


7,909.00 


173,147.59 


3,217.00 


3,306.00 


706.00 


242,494.59 


Craven 


43,169.00 


14,991.00 


7,355.00 


214,619.41 


-0- 


7,525.00 


-0- 


287,659.41 


Cumberland 


126,305.45 


46,587.14 


23,481.00 


937,744.33 


-0- 


20,135.00 


-0- 


1,154,252.92 


Currituck 


8,040.00 


4,884.00 


410.00 


53,842.70 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


67,176.70 


Dare 


11,815.00 


4,906.00 


1,265.00 


82,405.00 


-0- 


1,908.00 


-0- 


102,299.00 


Davidson 


40.678.19 


21,962.67 


6,466.25 


227,589.07 


8,939.00 


3,839.00 


-0- 


309,474.18 


Davie 


14,344.00 


7,571.00 


2,271.00 


75,473.50 


-0- 


914.00 


-0- 


100,573.50 


Duplin 


29.633.00 


13,380.00 


1,637.00 


144,820.02 


-0- 


2,354.00 


1,731.00 


193,555.02 


Durham 


103.487.00 


30,373.00 


6,770.00 


305,693.23 


-0- 


25,025.00 


-0- 


471,348.23 


Edgecombe 


28,062.00 


19,198.00 


8,651.00 


142,509.00 


11,325.00 


7,906.00 


1,499.00 


219,150.00 


Forsyth 


148,066.50 


26,142.00 


11,562.00 


435,146.35 


2,665.00 


51,372.35 


-0- 


674,954.20 


Franklin 


21,157.00 


10,171.00 


1,626.00 


80,239.00 


-0- 


998.00 


415.00 


1 14,606.00 


Gaston 


75,075.00 


38,352.00 


17,004.00 


339,576.55 


-0- 


11,715.00 


70.00 


481,792.55 


Gates 


5,541.00 


3,262.60 


338.00 


31,289.43 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


40,431.03 


Graham 


3,542.00 


2,646.00 


842.00 


20,620.00 


-- 


98.00 


-0- 


27,748.00 


Granville 


21,275.00 


8,622.00 


2,145.00 


88,388.50 


-li- 


2,078.00 


350.00 


122,858.50 


Greene 


9,754.00 


5,756.00 


810.00 


54,568.00 


lt 


208.00 


-0- 


71,096.00 


Guilford 


270.398.50 


35,875.00 


27,482.00 


751,037.58 


-0- 


99,099.00 


-0- 


1,183,892.08 


Halifax 


27,770.25 


18,211.00 


5,554.00 


199,056.66 


5,852.00 


4,233.00 


1,571.00 


262,247.91 


Harnett 


25,241.30 


12,854.01 


2,111.00 


121,443.15 


8,207.00 


3,718.01 


2,558.00 


176,132.47 


Haywood 


18,470.00 


10,374.00 


2,909.00 


188,334.10 


1,915.00 


2,613.00 


83.00 


224,698.10 


Henderson 


24.143.00 


11,444.56 


4,014.00 


114,349.86 


4.00 


1,244.00 


-0- 


155,199.42 


Hertford 


18,017.00 


9,908.96 


2,602.00 


91,330.39 


-0- 


1,840.00 


56.00 


123,754.35 


Hoke 


13,368.00 


7,337.00 


2,285.00 


81,632.75 


-0- 


148.00 


-0- 


104,770.75 


Hyde 


3,151.00 


2,048.00 


216.00 


21,990.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


27,405.00 


Iredell 


36,248.00 


16,754.00 


3,379.45 


199,805.13 


6,610.00 


4,697.00 


773.00 


268,266.58 


Jackson 


11,222.00 


6,766.00 


2,889.00 


71,012.86 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


91,889.86 


Johnston 


31,553.52 


16,815.00 


7,491.00 


213,218.15 


8,023.00 


4,033.00 


1,467.00 


282,600.67 


Jones 


7,084 00 


3,894.00 


827.00 


33,63800 


-0- 


360.00 


-0- 


45,803.00 


Lee 


21,986.00 


10,725.68 


5,721.61 


67,358.21 


-0- 


4,002.00 


-0- 


109,793.50 


Lenoir 


43,024.00 


13,328.68 


9,332.50 


179,473.92 





7,339.00 


251.00 


252,749.10 


Lincoln 


17,338.00 


10,158.00 


1,870.00 


78,178.00 





658.00 


-0- 


108,202.00 


Macon 


10,316.00 


6,372.40 


915.00 


83,883.00 


■0 


358.00 


5.00 


101,849.40 


Madison 


4,421.00 


2,650.00 


1,374.00 


24,284.00 





72.00 


-0- 


32,801.00 


Martin 


16,391.00 


8,655.00 


615.00 


78,520.60 


-0- 


1,506.00 


-0- 


105,687.60 


'■1 :Do ■'■'.■! 


19.535.51 


11,472.00 


3,340.00 


109,104.00 


-0- 


706.00 


-0- 


144,157.51 



48 



AMOUNTS OF FEES, FINES AND FORFEITURES COLLECTED AND DISTRIBUTED 
TO COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES 

FISCAL YEAR 1975-76 





Facility Fees 


Officer Fees 


Jail Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Officer Fees 


Jail Fees 






County 

239,601.50 


County 

37,543.00 


County 

-0- 


County 

850,941.61 


Municipality 

-0- 


Municipality 

48,502.00 


Municipality 

-0- 


Total 


Mecklenburg 


1,176.588.11 


Mitchell 


4,866.00 


2,504.00 


979.00 


21,112.00 


-0- 


564.00 


-0- 


30,025.00 


Montgomery 


19,703.00 


13,727.83 


3,800.00 


63,731.70 


-0- 


1,182.00 


-0- 


102,144.53 


Moore 


19,890.00 


14,109.00 


1,699.50 


121,518.70 


4,696.00 


2,486.00 


1,393.00 


165,792.20 


Nash 


30,465.00 


22,080.05 


5,117.00 


219,884.21 


15,428.00 


7,414.00 


2,021.00 


302,409.26 


New Hanover 


60,596.00 


10,520.00 


7,307.00 


225,568.39 


-0- 


15,785.00 


722.00 


320,498.39 


Northampton 


14,021.00 


9,025.00 


2,046.00 


73,898.50 


-0- 


492.00 


-0- 


99,482.50 


Onslow 


57,446.00 


25,121.00 


19,227.00 


501,931.89 


-0- 


6,334.00 


-0- 


610,059.89 


Orange 


24,688.50 


12.643.25 


2,367.00 


152,891.13 


12,003.00 


10,060.00 


718.00 


215,370.88 


Pamlico 


6,789.00 


4,237.00 


984.00 


35,430.49 


-0- 


12.00 


n 


47,452.49 


Pasquotank 


17,153.00 


5,289.00 


1,325.00 


90,530.00 


-0- 


2,512.00 


-0- 


116,809.00 


Pender 


13,026.00 


7,162.00 


2,867.00 


84,383.15 





677.00 


-0- 


108,115.15 


Perquimans 


6,448.00 


3,433.00 


680.00 


40,336.00 


-0- 


312.00 


-0- 


51,209.00 


Person 


15,180.00 


5,583.00 


1,614.00 


62 65100 


381.00 


2,172.00 


-0- 


87,583.00 


Pitt 


51,809.00 


18,963.00 


6,560.00 


273,368.15 


9,625.00 


12,735.00 


2,192.00 


374,892.15 


Polk 


8,659.00 


5,807.00 


3,560.28 


61,445.00 


-0- 


256.00 


-0- 


79,727.28 


Randolph 


42,611.50 


31,736.73 


4,400.00 


154,228.05 


1,230.00 


3,331.00 


5.00 


237,542.28 


Richmond 


23,712.00 


13,368.00 


3,552.00 


112,536.60 


-0- 


1,492.00 


-0- 


154,660.60 


Roberson 


45,939.50 


25,859.67 


8,882.00 


384,">9"> ">0 


17,247.00 


7,975.00 


3,909.00 


494,104.37 


Rockingham 


32,450.50 


18,567.56 


2,654.00 


174,374.98 


15,263.00 


8,470.00 


2,388.50 


254,168.54 


Rowan 


53,754.00 


29,521.50 


6,419.90 


231,865.29 


-0- 


6,704.00 


-0- 


328,264.69 


Rutherford 


21,312.00 


9,46.00 


5,969.00 


121,008.85 





1,474.00 


10.00 


159,233.85 


Sampson 


31,094.00 


17,408.00 


4,915.00 


143,327.00 


-0- 


2,407.00 


45.00 


199,196.00 


Scotland 


24,789.00 


12,565.00 


4,974.00 


123,710.30 


-0- 


3,388.00 


-0- 


169,426.30 


Stanly 


22,359.00 


7,171.48 


5,141.00 


93,358.00 


-0- 


2,826.00 


■0 


130,855.48 


Stokes 


15,085.50 


8,620.00 


2,798.00 


57,939.00 


-0- 


409.00 


-0- 


84,851.50 


Surry 


35,869.00 


23,005.10 


3,489.00 


149,727.62 


855.00 


3,482.00 


1,499.00 


217,926.72 


Swain 


5,577.00 


2,879.00 


4,052.00 


35,864.93 


-0- 


154.00 


-0- 


48,526.93 


Transylvania 


11,487.00 


7,670.06 


2,157.00 


49,082.00 


-0- 


735.00 


■0- 


71,131.06 


Tyrrell 


3,536.00 


2,214.00 


3 1 .00 


11,229.00 





-0- 


-0- 


17,010.00 


Union 


32,201.00 


20,065.00 


4,594.00 


158,256.00 


-0- 


1,370 





216,486.00 


Vance 


22,173.00 


7,409.00 


2,907.00 


77,153.00 


-0- 


2,268.00 


-0- 


111,910.00 


Wake 


196,890.60 


42,706.17 


15,454.10 


612,803.03 


3,307.00 


59,273.00 


1,378.00 


931,811.90 


Warren 


9,674.45 


4,757.00 


1,916.50 


31,005.87 


-0- 


792.00 


-0- 


48,145.82 


Washington 


8,629.00 


4,785.00 


317.00 


43,984.00 


-0- 


622.00 


-0- 


58,337.00 


Watauga 


15,315.00 


8,384.00 


1,639.00 


75,383.00 


-0- 


1,176.00 


-0- 


101,897.00 


Wayne 


48,219.53 


15,060.10 


5,246.00 


190,568.11 


678.00 


7,959.00 


221.00 


267,951.74 


Wilkes 


32,676.00 


16,314.00 


6,039.00 


123,271.82 


-0- 


252.00 


-0- 


178,552.82 


Wilson 


33,754.00 


18,595.85 


5,488.00 


135,922.58 


-0- 


5,005.00 


-0- 


198,765.43 


Yadkin 


14,083.00 


6 553 77 


2,505.50 


60,813.23 


-0- 


900.00 


-0- 


84,855.50 


Yancey 


5,806.00 


3,814.00 


1,407.00 


24,618.00 


-0- 


268.00 


-0- 


35,913.00 


Totals 


$3,250,204.00 


$,326,721.58 


$441,516.03 


$14,917,907.14 


$173,137.00 


$579,980.36 


$34,034.50 


$20,723,500.61 



149 



DIRECTORIES ** 



'As of December 31, 1976 



15 



THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL 



Appointed b> Chief Justice Susie Sharp 

Associate Justice J. Frank Huskins, Chairman, Raleigh 
Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Lumberton 
Si'pfrior Court Judge Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louishurg 
Chief District Court Judge J. Ray Braswelt, Newland 
District Attorney James E. Roberts, Concord 
District Attorney W. Hampton Childs, Jr., Lincolnton 



Appointed by Court of Appeals Chief Judge Walter E. Brock 

David M. Britt, Raleigh 



Appointed by Governor James E. Holshouser, Jr. 

Kyle Hayes, North Wilkesboro 
Claud R. Wheatly, Jr., Beaufort 



Appointed by Lt. Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. 

Senator Luther J. Britt, Jr., Lumberton 
Senator Lamar Gudger, Asheville 



Appointed by Speaker of the House James C. Green 

Representative H. Parks Helms, Charlotte 
Representative Bobby Rogers, Henderson 



Appointed by Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten 

R. Bruce White, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh 



Appointed by the State Bar Council 

W. Marion Allen, Elkin 
W.D. Sabiston, Jr., Carthage 
Leon Corbett, Burgaw 
Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., Brevard 



Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Assistant Director of the 
Administrative Office of the Courts; 
Executive Secretary of the Judicial Council 



152 



JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 



Appointed by Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Chief Judge Walter E. Brock 
Superior Court Judge George M. Fountain 
District Court Judge C. Waiter Ai i en 



Appointed by Governor 

Mrs. George L. Hundley 
Marvin B. Koonce, Jr. 



Appointed by North Carolina State Bar Council 

Emerson T. Sanders 
Robert G. Sanders 



153 



TRIAL JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 



Superior Court Division* 
District 



12 

13 

14 

15 
16 
17 



19 

20 
21 

22 
2< 
24 
2^ 

26 



Judge 

J. Herbert Small 

Elbert S. Peel, Jr. 

Robert D. Rouse, Jr. 

Russell J. Lanier 

Bradford Tillery 
Joshua S. James 

Perry Martin 

George M. Fountain 
John Webb 

Albert W. Cowper 

Hamilton H. Hobgood 

James H. Pou Bailey 
A. Pilston Godwin, Jr. 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr. 

Harry E. Canady 

E. Maurice Braswell 
Darius B. Herring, Jr. 

Giles R.Clark 

Clarence W.Hall 
Thomas H. Lee 

D. Marsh McLelland 

Henry A. McKinnon, Jr. 

James M. Long 

Walter E. Crissman 
Charles T. Kivett 
W. Douglas Albright 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr. 
Hal. H.Walker 

John D. McConnell 

Harvey A. Lupton 
William Z.Wood 

Robert A. Collier, Jr. 

Julius A. Rousseau, Jr. 

Ronald W. Howell 

Sam J. Ervin, III 
Forrest A. Ferrell 

Fred H. Hasty 
Erank W. Snepp, Jr. 
William T. Grist 
Kenneth A. Griffin 



Residence 

Elizabeth City 

Williamston 

Farmville 

Beulaville 

Wilmington 
Maple Hill 

Rich Square 

Tarboro 
Wilson 

Kinston 

Louisburg 

Raleigh 
Raleigh 
Raleigh 

Benson 

Fayetteville 
Fayetteville 

Eliza bethtown 

Durham 
Durham 

Burlington 

Lumberton 

Yanceyville 

High Point 

Greensboro 

Greensboro 

Spencer 
Asheboro 

Southern Pines 

Winston-Salem 
Winston-Salem 

Statesville 

North Wilkesboro 

Marshall 

Morganton 
Hickory 

Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 



'In districts with more than one judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 



154 



District 

27 

28 
50 



TRIAL JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 

Superior Court Division* 

Judge 



Robert E. Gaines 
John R. Friday 
Robert W. Kirby 

Harry C. Martin 
Robert D. Lewis 

Jonathan W. Jackson 

Lacy H. Thornburg 



Residence 

Gastonia 

Lincolnton 

Cherryville 

Asheville 
Asheville 

Hendersonville 

Webster 



: In districts with more than one judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 



Judge 

James M. Baley, Jr. 
Ronald Barbee 
Robert R. Browning 
Robert L. Gavin 
William T. Graham 
David I. Smith 
Donald L. Smith 
Ralph A. Walker 



Judge 

W.E. Anglin 
Frank M. Armstrong 
Walter J. Bone 
W.H.S. Burgwyn 
Francis O. Clarkson 
Walter W.Cahoon 
P.C. Froneberger 
Robert M. Gambill 
W.K. McLean 
Joseph W. Parker 
George B. Patton 
F. Donald Phillips 



President 

President-Elect 

Vice President 

Secretary-Treasurer 

Additional Executive 
Committee Members 



Special Judges, Superior Court 

Residence 

Asheville 

Greensboro 

Greenville 

Pinehurst 

Winston-Salem 

Burlington 

Cary 

Greensboro 

Emergency Judges, Superior Court 

Residence 



Burnsville 

Troy 

Nashville 

Woodland 

Charlotte 

Elizabeth City 

Gastonia 

North Wilkesboro 

Asheville 

Windsor 

Franklin 

Rockingham 

Conference of Superior Court Judges 

Fred H. Hasty, Charlotte 
Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville 
Jonathan W. Jackson, Hendersonville 
John Webb, Wilson 

A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh 
Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 



155 



TRIAL JIDCES OF THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 



District Court Division* 



District 



I I 



Judge 

John T. Chaffin 
Grafton G. Beaman 

Hallct S.Ward 
Charles H. Manning 

Charles H. Whedbee 
Herbert O. Phillips, III 
Norris C. Reed, Jr. 
Robert D. Wheeler 

Harvey Boney 
Walter P. Henderson 
Kenneth W. Turner 
Stephen M. Williamson 

Gilbert H. Burnett 
N.B. Barefoot 
John M.Walker 

Joseph D. Blythe 
Nicholas Long 
Robert E. Williford 

J. Phil Carlton 
Allen W.Harrell 
Tom H. Matthews 
Ben H. Neville 

John P. Exum 
Kenneth R. Ellis 
Herbert W.Hardy 
Arnold O. Jones 
W. Milton Nowell 

Claude W.Allen, Jr. 
Ben U.Allen 
LinwoodT. Peoples 
Charles W. Wilkinson 

George F. Bason 
Henry V. Barnette, Jr. 
Stafford G. Bullock 
George R. Greene 
John H. Parker 

Robert B. Morgan, Sr. 
Woodrow Hill 
W. Pope Lyon 
Elton C. Pridgen 



Residence 

Elizabeth City 
Elizabeth City 

Washington 
Williamston 

Greenville 
Morehead City 
New Bern 
Grifton 

Jacksonville 
Trenton 
Rose Hill 
Kenansville 

Wilmington 
Wilmington 
Wilmington 

Harrellsville 
Roanoke Rapids 
Lewiston 

Pinetops 
Wilson 

Rocky Mount 
Whitakers 

Kinston 

Fremont 

Maury 

Goldsboro 

Goldsboro 

Oxford 
Henderson 
Henderson 
Oxford 

Raleigh 
Raleigh 
Raleigh 
Raleigh 
Raleigh 

Lillington 
Dunn 
Smith I i c I d 

Smith field 



'The Chief District Judge is listed first. 



156 



TRIAL JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 

District Court Division* 



District 



12 



13 



14 



15 



16 



17 



1') 



21 



Judge 



Derb S. Carter 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr. 
Joseph E. Dupree 
Charles L. Guy 
George Stuhl 

Frank T. Grady 
J.Wilton Hunt, Sr. 
William E.Wood 

E. Lawson Moore 
Samuel F. Gantt 

J. Milton Read, Jr. 

Jasper B. Allen, Jr. 
Thomas D. Cooper, Jr. 
Donald L. Paschal 
Stanley Peele 

Samuel E. Britt 
B. Craig Ellis 
John S. Gardner 
Charles G. McLean 

Leonard H. van Noppen 
Foy Clark 
Frank Freeman 
George M. Harris 

Edward K. Washington 
Elreta M. Alexander 
Robert L. Cecil 
B. Gordon Gentry 
John B.Hatfield, Jr. 
Byron Haworth 
James S. Pfaff 
John F. Yeattes, Jr. 

Robert L. Warren 
L. Frank Faggart 
Adam C. Grant, Jr. 
L.T. Hammond, Jr. 
Frank M. Montgomery 

F. Fetzer Mills 
Edward E. Crutchfield 
Donald R. Huffman 
Walter M. Lampley 

Abner Alexander 
William F. Freeman 
R. Kason Keiger 
James A. Harrill, Jr. 
Gary B. Tash 



Residence 

Fayetteville 

Fayetteville 

Raeford 

Fayetteville 

Fayetteville 

Elizabethtown 

Chadbourn 

Whiteville 

Durham 
Durham 
Durham 

Burlington 
Burlington 
Siler City 
Chapel Hill 

Lumberton 
Laurinburg 
Lumberton 
Lumberton 

Danbury 
Mount Airy 
Dobson 
Pelham 

Jamestown 
Greensboro 
High Point 
Greensboro 
Greensboro 
High Point 
Greensboro 
Greensboro 

Concord 

Kannapolis 

Concord 

Asheboro 

Salisbury 

Wadesboro 
Albemarle 
Wadesboro 
Rockingham 

Winston-Salem 
Winston-Salem 
Winston-Salem 
Winston-Salem 
Winston-Salem 



The Chief District Judge is listed first. 



157 



TRIAL JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 



District 



23 
24 

25 



26 



r 



28 



29 



50 



District Court Division* 



Judiie 



Lester P. Martin, Jr. 
Preston Cornelius 
Robert W. Johnson 
Hubert E. Olive, Jr. 

Ralph Davis 
Samuel L. Osborne 

J. Ray Bras well 
Robert H. Lacey 

Livingston Vernon 
Benjamin Beach 
Joseph P. Edens, Jr. 
Bill J. Martin 
Samuel McD. Tate 

Clifton E. Johnson 
P.B. Beachum, Jr. 
Larry T. Black 
Lilburn S. Brown 
William G. Jones 
James E. Lanning 
Chase B. Saunders 
David B. Sentelle 

Lewis Bui winkle 
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr. 
Arnold M. Harris 
James R. Phillips 
Donald E. Ramseur 

C.Walter Allen 
James O. Israel, Jr. 
Gary A. Sluder 
William M. Styles 

Robert T. Gash 
Zoro J. Guice, Jr. 
Hollis M. Owens, Jr. 

Robert J. Leatherwood, III 
J. Charles McDarris 
John J. Snow, Jr. 



Residence 

Mocksville 
Troutman 
Statesville 
Lexington 

North Wilkesboro 
Wilkesboro 

Newland 
Newland 

Morganton 

Lenoir 

Hickory 

Hickory 

Morganton 

Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Matthews 

Gastonia 

Gastonia 

Ellenboro 

Gastonia 

Gastonia 

Asheville 
Candler 
Asheville 
Black Mountain 

Brevard 

Hendersonville 

Rutherfordton 

Bryson City 
Waynesville 
Murphy 



*The Chief District Judge is listed first. 



President 



Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

Leonard H. van Noppen, Danbury 



President 
Vice President 
Secret a rv-Treasurer 



North Carolina Association of District Court Judges 

C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

Herbert O. Phillips, III, MoreheadCity 

John M. Walker, Wilmington 

158 



North Carolina Association of District Court Judges 

Additional Executive Committee Members 

John Gardner 
B. Gordon Gentry 
Robert J. Leatherwood 
Ben H. Neville 



159 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND ASSISTANTS 
(As of December 31, 1976) 

DISTRICT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANTS 

1 THOMAS S. WATTS 

Charles C. Bean 
John R. Parker 
David K. Teague 

2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR. 

James W. Hardison 
Mitchell D. Norton 

3 FLI BLOOM 

William H. Barker 
Thomas D. Haigwood 
Donald C. Hicks, III 
George M. Jennings 
James E. Martin 

4 WILLIAM H.ANDREWS 

Michael L. Bonfoey 
Daniel McLawhorn 

E. Alex Erwin, III 
Charles H. Henry 
W. Douglas Parsons 

5 WILLIAM ALLEN COBB 

William J. Boney, Jr. 
John E. Carriker 
James C. King 
Mary Ellen Pipines 
John W.Smith, II 

6 W. H.S. BURGWYN,JR. 

David H. Beard, Jr. 
James R. May 
W.E. Murphrey, III 

7 FRANKLIN R.BROWN 

Howard S. Boney, Jr. 
Sarah Frances Patterson 
Mark L. Speas 
C. David Williams, Jr. 

X D.M.JACOBS 

Farris A. Duncan 
Mary O. Jones 

F. Ogden Parker 
Paul M. Wright 

DISTRICT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANTS 

9 CHARLES M. WHITE, III 

Eric A. Saunders 
David R. Waters 
Robert S. Weathers 



60 



10 BURLEY B.MITCHELL, JR. 

Rudolph A. Ashton, III 

Joseph A. Calder 
Narley L. Cashwell 
Laurence D. Colbert 
Francis W. Crawley 
Nicholas J. Dombalis 
John T.Hall 
KyleS. Hall 
Joyce A. Hamilton 
John R. Riley 
Russell G.Sherrill, III 

11 JOHN W.TWISDALE 

William A. Christian 
William N. Farrell, Jr. 
George R. Murphy 
John P. O'Hale 

12 EDWARD W.GRANNIS, JR. 

Wade E. Byrd 
Michael G. DeSilva 
John W. Dickson 
Randy S. Gregor 
Anna E. Keever 
Leighton W. McFarland, III 
Willie A. Swann 
Leonard W. Thagard 

13 LEEJ. GREER 

Michael F. Easley 
William J. Williamson 

14 ANTHONY BRANNON 

Robert Brown, Jr. 
Daniel K. Edwards, Jr. 
Donald W. Stephens 
Ronald L. Stephens 

15 HERBERT F. PIERCE 

Thomas V. Aldridge, Jr. 
Q. Harold Caviness 
Thomas A. Fulton, Jr. 
John A. Little 
Charles W. Wannamaker, III 

16 JOEF.BRITT 

William A. Hough 
Charles D. Ratley 

17 ALLAN D. [VIE, JR. 

Alfred J. Ellington 
Jerry Cash Martin 
Jerry J. Rutledge 
Ralph J.Scott 



16 



18 E. RAYMOND ALEXANDER, JR. 

James M. Green, Jr. 
Howard R. Greeson, Jr. 
David H. Idol. II 
Karen S. Jennings 
Joseph R. John 
Horace M. Kimel, Jr. 
Michael A. Schlosser 
David B. Smith 
Joseph A. Williams 

19 JAMES E. ROBERTS 

James R. Bowers 
David A. Chambers 
Timothy M. Hawkins 
William D. Kenerly 
Milton B. Shoal, Jr. 

20 CARROLL LOWDER 

Michael E. Beale 
Herschel G. Cheshire 
Harry T. Church 
Kenneth W. Honeycutt 
Joseph L. Hutcherson, II 

21 DONALD K.TISDALE 

Robert M. Brown 
Vessie J. Burkins 
Howard D. Cole 
Daniel S. Johnson 
Richard R. Lyle 
David R. Tanis 
James C. Yeatts, III 

22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR. 

Samuel A. Cathey 
George T. Fuller 
Phyllis S. Penry 



162 



DISTRICT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANTS 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN 

John A. Morton 

24 CLYDE M. ROBERTS 

James T. Rusher 

25 DONALD E.GREENE 

Thomas I. Barrows 
Bruce K. Caldwell 
Edward J. Crotty 
Robert M. Grant, Jr. 
J. Laird Jacob, Jr. 

26 PETER S.GILCHRIST 

K. Sheperd Buckhalt, Jr. 
Kenneth S. Cannaday 
J. Gentry Caudill 
H. Irwin Coffield, III 
Catherine L. Cooper 
Kenneth N. Davis 
Walter J. Dozier, Jr. 
Richard S. Gordon 
Joseph C. Jones 
Gary L. Murph 
Michael V. Reusing 
Michael F. Royster 
Peter K. K. Thompson 
JohnC. Wyatt 

27A JOSEPH G.BROWN 

George W. Hill 
Jacqueline O. Schultz 
Richard B. Schultz 
James T. Stroud, Jr. 

27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR. 

James T. Bowen, III 
William L. Morris 
Jack H.White 

28 ROBERT W. FISHER 

Alton T. Cummings 
James A. Freemen 
Arthur E. Jacobson 
Thomas E. L. Lipsey, II 

29 M. LEONARD LOWE 

Thomas N. Hix 
Alan C. Leonard 
John H. Snyder 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III 

John W. Alexander, Jr. 
Reid G. Brown 
James H. Howell, Jr. 



63 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION 

President James E. Roberts, Concord 

Vice-President Carroll Lowder, Monroe 

Secretary -Treasurer Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 
Vice President, 

Leaislative Affairs Peter S. Gilchrist, Charlotte 



64 



Judicial 
Distric t 

12 



IS 



26 



27 



2S 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND ASSISTANTS 

(As of December 3 1,1 976) 



MARY ANN L. TALLY 
Deno G. Economou 
Pinckney J. Moses 
James R. Parrish 
Fred J. Williams 

WALLACE C. HARRELSON 

Frank A. Campbell, Jr. 
Delmar L. Dowda 
Robert A. Franklin 
Michael F. Joseph 
Thomas F. Kastner 
Frederick G. Lind 
Anne B. Lupton 

MICHAEL S. SCOFIELD 

Richard D. Boner 
David R. Caudle 
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr. 
Mark A. Michael 
Keith M. Stroud 
Rufus F. Walker, Jr. 
Lyle J. Yurko 

JIM R. FUNDERBURK 

Freeman D. Canty 
Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr. 
Curtis O. Harris 
Lawrence B. Langston 
Charles D. Randall 

PETER L. RODA 
Robert L. Harrell 
J. Robert Hufstader 
Lawrence C. Stoker 



Fayetteville 

Fayetteville 
Fayetteville 
Fayetteville 
Fayetteville 

Greensboro 

Greensboro 

Greensboro 

Greensboro 

Greensboro 

High Point 

High Point 

Winston-Salem 

Charlotte 

Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 
Charlotte 

Gastonia 

Gastonia 
Gastonia 
Gastonia 
Gastonia 

Asheville 

Asheville. 
Asheville 
Asheville 



SPECIAL COUNSEL AT MENTAL HOSPITALS 



Special Counsel 



P. Anne Allen 
Rodney R. Goodman, Jr. 
Judith L. Kornegay 
Samuel B. Currin, III 



Hospital 

Broughton 
Cherry 
Dorothea Dix 
John Umstead 



City 

Morganton 
Goldsboro 
Raleigh 
Butner 



65 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 



County 

Alamance 

Alexander 

Allegham 

Anson 

Ashe 

Aver) 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Bladen 

Brunsw ick 

Buncombe 

Burke 

Cabarrus 

Caldwell 

Camden 

Carteret 

Caswell 

Catawba 

Chatham 

Cherokee 

Chowan 

Cla> 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Currituck 

Dare 

Davidson 

Davie 

Duplin 

Durham 

Edgecombe 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Gaston 

Gates 

Graham 

Granville 

Greene 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Harnett 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Hertford 

Hoke 

Hyde 

Iredell 

Jackson 



Clerk of Court 

Louise B. Wilson 
Martha J. Adams 
Glenn Busic 
R. Frank Hightower 
Virginia W. Johnson 
Billy J. Vance 
Bessie J. Cherry 
Thomas S. Speight 
Wanda S. Campbell 
J.E. Brown 
J. Ray Elingburg 
Major Joines 
Estus B. White 
Mary H. Thompson 
Caroline G. Halstead 
Mary G. Austin 
Julian P. Moore 
Eunice W. Mauney 
Janice Oldham 
James C. Howse 
Lena M. Leary 
Ralph A. Allison 
Ruth S. Dedmon 
Lacy R. Thompson 
Dorothy Pate 
George T. Griffin 
Wiley Elliot 
C.S. Meekins 
Hugh Shepherd 
Delores Jordan 
John A. Johnson 
Jim Carr 
Don Gilliam, Jr. 
A.E. Blackburn 
RalphS. Knott 
Betty Jenkins 
Tobe Daniels, Jr. 
O.W. Hooper, Jr. 
Mary C. Helms 
Jimmie L. Jones 
J. P. Shore 
J.C. Taylor 
Cieorgia L. Brown 
William G. Henry 
Thomas H. Thompson 
Richard Vann 
Juanita Edmund 
Walter Allen Credle 
Carl G. Smith 
Margaret W. Henson 



County 

Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Lincoln 

Macon 

Madison 

Martin 

McDowell 

Mecklenburg 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

New Hanover 

Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pasquotank 

Pender 

Perquimans 

Person 

Pitt 

Polk 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Rowan 

Rutherford 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stanly 

Stokes 

Surry 

Swain 

Transylvania 

Tyrrell 

Union 

Vance 

Wake 

Warren 

Washington 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Wilkes 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

Yancey 



Clerk of Court 

James C. Woodard 
F. Rogers Pollock 
Sion H. Kelly 
M.E.Creech 
Nellie Bess 
A.W. Perry 
Judson Edwards 
Mary K. Wynne 
Ruth B. Williams 
Robert M. Blackburn 
Arthur Ledford 
Charles M. Johnson 
CM. McLeod 
Rachel M. Joyner 
James G. McKeithan 
R.J. White, Jr. 
Everitte Barbee 
Frank S. Frederick 
Sadie W. Edwards 
Naomi A. Chesson 
Frances N. Futch 
W.J. Ward 
Rama J. Williams 
H.L. Lewis, Jr. 
J. Thurston Arledge 
John H. Skeen 
Miriam F. Greene 
Ben G. Floyd 
Frankie C. Williams 
Francis C. Glover 
Edgar W. Tanner 
Charlie T. McCullen,Jr. 
James M. McGregor 
Joe H. Lowder 
Robert Millej- 
MarthaO. Comer 
Paul Mitchell 
Marian M. McMahon 
Jessie L. Spencer 
Nola H. Cunningham 
Henry W. Hight 
J. Russel Nipper 
Anne F. Davis 
Louise S. Allen 
John T. Bingham 
Shelton Jordan 
Wayne Yates 
W.A. Boone, Jr. 
Harold J. Long 
Arnold E. Higgins 



66 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 



President Harold Long, (Yadkin) 

First Vice- 
President Betty Jenkins (Gaston) 

Second Vice- 
President Eunice W. Mauney (Catawba) 



Treasurer Sion H. Kelly (Lee) 

Secretary Ruth B. Williams (McDowell) 



Additional Executive Committee Members 

John A. Johnson (Duplin) 
Estus B. White (Cabarrus) 



,67 



CHIEF COURT COUNSELORS 



Judicial District 



9 
10 

1 ! 
12 
] I 
14 
15 



Chief Court Counselo r 

James R. Hendrix 
Edenton 

Charles A. Hough, Jr. 

Plymouth 



Judicial District 



Chief Court Counselor 



3 


Everlena Rogers, Acting 




Greenville 


4 


Ida R. Miles 




Kenansville 


5 


William T.Childs 




Wilmington 


6 


John R. Brady 




Halifax 


7 


Nancy C. Patteson 



Rocky Mount 

Harold G. Hinnant 
Goldsboro 

Tommy Lewis 
Henderson 

Leslie J. Phillips, Jr. 
Raleigh 

Fletcher C. Hubbard 
Lillington 

John F. Clark 
Fayetteville 

Jimmy E. Godwin 
Whiteville 

Frederick K. Elkins 
Durham 

Harry L. Derr, Jr. 
Graham 



16 


Robert H. Hughes 
Lumberton 


17 


Martha Lauten 
Wentworth 


IS 


J. Manley Dodson 
Greensboro 


19 


James C. Queen 
Salisbury 


20 


Allen Mauney, Acting 
Monroe 


21 


Jim Weakland 
Winston-Salem 


22 


Lexie Ludnum 
Lexington 


23 


Rex B. Yates 
North Wilkesboro 


24 


Lynn S. Hughes 
Newland 


25 


Lee Cox 
Lenoir 


26 


Eugene Deal 
Charlotte 


27 


Helen Cunningham 
Gastonia 


28 


Joseph Revis 
Asheville 


29 


Kenneth E. Lanning 
Hendersonville 


30 


Betty G. Alley 

Sylva 



68 



MAGISTRATES 



District County 



1 Camden 



Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 
Washington 

Carteret 



Craven 



Magistrate 

Edward G. Forehand 
H. Ashburn Leary 



District County 

Pamlico 
Pitt 



Chowan 


Carlton N. Perry 
R.A. Tarkington 


Currituck 


Noah A. Brickhouse 
Sam W. Sanderlin 


Dare 


Ephriam N. O'Neal 
John C. Sheetz 
Ralph L. Swain 


Gates 


John D. Jones 
Floyd G. Morris 


Pasquotank 


Jack S. Gaskill 
Logan B. Lane 
Lloyd S. Sawyer 
Richard T. Venters 


Perquimans 


BroughtonT. Dail, Sr 
J. Dillon Young 



Duplin 



Hampton B. Allen 
Chant B. Cutler 
William T. Stowe 
Kenneth V. Swindell 

Dancy W. Marshall 
Donald M.Snell 
Warren G. Spencer 

James P. Keel 
Horace A. Ray 
W.M. Tetterton 

Robert L. Mitchell 

William B. Blackburn 
Hilton O. Chesson 
Robert W. Sikes 

Frank A. Cassiano 
George W. Dill, Jr. 
Prentiss Garner 
Brinkley G. Harrell 
John C. Rae 
Joseph A. Trigleth 
Norwood R. Young 

Marie A. Newell 
Robert A. Phipps 
John D. Provost 
James C. Putnam 
Norwood R. Saunders 
Henry P. Stevens 
William G. van Buskirk 



Jones 



Onslow 



Sampson 



New Hanover 



Magistrate 

Troy B. Miller 

H.H. Adams 
Stanley J. David 
Alonza Forrest 
Lewis F. Hodges 
Carl G. Hudson 
Douglas W. Paige 
Leonard Peele 
Joney E. Taylor 
Leonard Turcotte 
William E. Whitehurst 
A.L. Whitley 
James R. Wooten 

Melvin G. Cording 
James R. Frye 
Robert J. Hursey 
H.L.Phillips 
Carlton A. Precythe 
Hubert M. Price 
Dorothy K. Sheffield 
Perry Williams 
R.F. Williamson 

9 

Joe H. Becton 
JohnW.Creagh,Jr. 
Raymond Harrison 

Edward T. Cole, Sr. 
W. Gerald Hines 
Wilbur R. Home 
G.L. Mattocks 
Sybil Meadows 
Alton Mills 
Margaret H. Murrill 
Dorine C. Parker 

Thomas E. Brown 
Milton Carter 
Oliver L. Croom, Sr. 
William G. Hondros 
Cornelius E. Matthews 
Carroll L. Spencer 
William W. Wilson 

Fred G. Beach 
Hartford E. Boykin 
Walter L. Burnett, Jr. 
Robert T. Chestnut 
James L- Coates 
Serena H. Collins 
Jack V. Glisson 
Herbert L. Howard 
Joel S. Smith 



169 



MAGISTRATES 



District County 



Magistrate 



District County 



Magistrate 



Pender 



Bertie 



Halifax 



Hertford 



Northampton 



Edgecombe 



Nash 



Wilson 



Linda L. Bradsher 
Catherine M. Croom 
James R. Frye 
Florence Howard 
Phillip K. Leeseburg 

John C. Baker 
Jimmie R. Barnes 
John M. Chamblee 
George T. Darden 

Leonard G. Barrow 
Herbert H.Bell 
Betty G. Boyd 
John R. Daniel 
William T. Draper 
Woodrow M. Gay 
George R. Ivey 
W.F.King 
James H. Quails 
James M. Shearin 
Alma H.Ward 

Robert B. Brady 
James C. Early 
James W.Hill 
Harvey J. Purvis 
John D.White 

N.B. Hughes 
Otis Ricks 
Robert Shaw 
L.R.Taylor 
Ralph Thompson 

Charles B. Godwin 
Jack W. Harrell 
Harold D. Painter 
Emmett G. Pate 
David D. Sessoms 
William H.Ward 

Henry G. Barnes 
Leslie R. Bass, Jr. 
A.R. Dixon 
Ralph W. Downing 
Ralph H. Earnhardt 
Warren T. Evans 
Stanley L. Lamm 
Paul A. Moore 
Wiley G. Robbins 
OdelleG. Searcy 

Benjamin Batts, Jr. 
Roland Gardner 



Greene 
Lenoir 



Wayne 



Franklin 



Granville 



Person 



Vance 



Warren 



Wake 



June Hawley 
Johnnie C. Ivey 
James P. Jones 
Douglas W. Stewart 

Emory E. Croom, Sr. 
Martha E. Croom 

Harold L. Dail 
Claude C. Davis 
Ethro D.Hill 
George L. Jenkins, Sr. 
Levin K. Jones 
Sid J. Meyers 
Kenneth R. Tunstall 

Warren H. Greenfield 
Carlton D. Hicks 
Othar L. Jernigan 
Troy W. Pate, Sr. 
Dan L. Shackleford 
EdnaT. Underhill 
R.P. Yelverton 

William F. Collins 
Alfred M. Goodwin 
William J. Pace 
William P. Pearce, Jr. 

Herbert F. Bernard 
Wallace P. Chappell 
George A. Currin 
Marshall V. Patterson 
J.G.Wheeler, Jr. 

John P. Brooks 
Darrow B. Gillis 
John W. Merritt 
Wallace I. Tingen 

KennethS. Catlett 
Tom D. Hardie 
James H. King 
Lewis C. White 

Carson S. Pridgen 
Roberts. Rodwell 
J. Edward Rooker 

Thomas W. Adams 
Jay L. Ashley 
Charles E. Baker 
Allen W. Brown 
Harry R. Brown 
Leroy Burton 
Phillip C. Castlebury 



70 



MAGISTRATES 



District County 



Magistrate 



District County 



Magistrate 



1 1 Harnett 



Johnston 



Lee 



12 Cumberland 



Hoke 



13 Bladen 



Albert L. Garner, Jr. 
Maude P. Hocutt 
William R. Powell, Jr. 
Jerry P. Ray 
Harvey W. Raynor, III 

N. Mangum Butler 
Neil C. Cameron 
Verle P. Flowers 
Clayborn L. Holder 
Nicholas A. Joseph 
Doris C. Langdon 
C.T. Lloyd 
Wyatt McDonald 
Virginia M. Neighbors 
Carolyn J. Watkins 

Robert G. Adams 
C. Marvin Atkinson 
Eva J. Beasley 
Larry W. Castlebury 
Ray M. Floors 
Ransom E. Hill 
Luther W. Hobgood, Jr. 
H.B. Jernigan, Jr. 
Archie Johnson, Jr. 
Nathan T. Lassiter 
Oscar H. Martin 
J.T.Smith 

Frances T. Alcaras 
Joseph W. Godfrey 
Hubert C. Mason 
Johnny C. Miller 
Aubrey G. Spivey 

Stacy Autry 
James B. Darden 
Thomas S. Drake 
Boyd L. McLean 
Lewis Mitchell 
Otto R. Morgan 
S.L.Oakley 
Robert L. Parrish 
Keith L. Rose 
Philip J. Semel 
Louis G. Waldrop 

Helen S. Barrington 
George S. Hedgepeth 
Brian H. Thornberg 

Rufus A. Britt 
Charlie G. Gore 



Brunswick 



Columbus 



14 



Durham 



15 



Alamance 



Chatham 



Orange 



16 



Robeson 



Dougald B. McKeithan, Jr. 
Leroy Register, Jr. 

R.W. Cheers 
Ernest F. Gore 
Lela Osborne 
George B. Reed 
Samuel A. Sue 
Ephraim E. Swain 

Ralph J. Bullard 
Ralph Edwards 
William T. Freeman, Jr. 
John W. Mooney 
Ted Watts 
John Wilson 

Chester A. Berryman 
Ray P. Guthrie, Jr. 
Wilbur L. Hilliard 
Audrey P. Merritt 
Ruby J. Parrish 
Sarah H. Spell 
Monroe P. Taylor 
M.J. West 

Dwight R. Barringer 
Charles F. Bivens 
Sarah W. Boswell 
John D. Lea 
Joseph F. Loy 
Doris M. Moon 
Allen D. Pearce 
W.B.Terrell 
Frank D. Wilkinson 

Earl F. Parker 
A.M. Stone 
Joe T. Torbert 
W.C. Webb 
Harvey C. Womble 

Carl D. Chesire 
Newell C. Cogdell 
Henry B. Hackney 
Clayton L. Haithcock 
June C. Merritt 
Henry W. Phelps 
William N.Tyler 

F. LeVerne Adams 
Jerry Cummings 
Judson Y. Duffee 
James L. French, Jr. 
David E. Hendrix 



171 



MAGISTRATES 



District Counts 



Magistrate 



District County 



Magistrate 



Scotland 



1 7 Caswel 



Rockingham 



Stokes 



Surry 



18 Guilford 



19 C ;ibarrus 



William C.McGirt 
Robert W. Misenheimer 
E.L. Musselwhite, Jr. 
James B. Nye, Jr. 
Elbert V. Prevatte 
John R. Schell 
Tony Hunt 

W. Vivian McCall 
Donald McPherson 
Robert C. Woodward 

Raymond Y. Allen 
Montrose S. Angle 
Gilbert C. Chandler 

Sidney F. Allen 
Rush C.Collins, Jr. 
William T. Dodson 
Robert J. Hudson, Jr. 
James B. Lemons 
Herman L. Peters 
J. HoyteStultz, Jr. 

P.J. Leake 

Don S. Montgomery 

Wayne L. Snyder 

Donald G. Badgett 
Richard W. Reid 
James B. Shumate 
Charles T. Wheeler 
Gary L. White 

Edward M. Burke 
JanieT. Carroll 
Robert G.Clark 
James A. Dean 
Raymond C. Embry 
Wallace G. Foutch 
John D. Fulbright 
Alice B. Greene 
William R.Marshall 
Sterling M. Mattocks 
Bennie A. Rook 
Harvey G. Shoffner 
James B. Skinner 
Louis E. Smith 
Gordon E. Talbott 
Ira B. Walker 
Juanita J. Wharton 

William W. Baggs 
Carolyn M. Goodman 



l l ) 



Montgomery 



Randolph 



Rowan 



20 



Anson 



Moore 



Richmond 



Stanly 



Union 



Forsyth 



Raymond J. Moore 
Richard K. Polk 
Douglas B. Roberts 
Bruce L. Slawson 

Hubert C. Green 
Thomas W. Greene 
Frank R. Thomas 

Jacob C. Crotts 
Noel Crotts 
Barbara B. Harrison 
Hurley D. Hicks 
Curtis P. Teague, Jr. 
Bruce W. Wright 

Hayden W. Gillean 
Garvis W. Hamilton 
Frances E. Julian 
Luther R. Miller 
Hoyle E. Roberts 
Tyson Terry, Jr. 
Robert M.Williams 

James A. Burns 
LolaD. Ingold 
Edward T. Jarman 
Frank E. Jones 

Joseph H. Allen 
J.B. Edwards 
Robert G. Fry, Jr. 
Luke L. Marion, Jr. 
George K. Suggs 
John B. Tulloch 

E. Burke Gunter 
W.H.Jackson 
W. Clarence Parsons 
O. Brown Smith 

Edmund L. Davis 
James W. Freeman 
R. Parker Miller 
Jesse M. Morton 

Betty R. Boshnyak 
Oliver H. Griffin 
Jane H. Helms 
Wiley K. Helms 

Joseph C. Lewter 
Emma C. Rothrock 
Harold W. Thomerson, Sr. 



72 



MAGISTRATES 



District County 
22 Alexander 



Davidson 



Davie 



Iredell 



23 Alleghany 



Ashe 



Wilkes 



24 



Yadkin 

Avery 
Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 



Magistrate 

Harvey C. Feimster 
Joe James 
Kermit Sherrill 

Anne G. Ashmore 
Karen B. Hunt 
Charles L. Lawson, Sr. 
Curry F. Lopp 
Eddie R. Lowery 
Edward J. Meachum, Jr. 
Mattie B. Myers 
Carol L. Pierce 

Tony S. Greene 
Samuel W. Howell 
Ruby A. Purvis 

Ludwig Ash, Jr. 
Larry J. Beaver 
Henry C. Fox 
Samuel W. Neel 
William H. Pennell 
Rona E. Ritchie 
Roy W. Waugh 
A.J. Wilson 

Woodrow H. Estep 
Walter C.Nichols 

Charles B. Colvard 
Lloyd S. Jones 
Fred E. Lawrence 

Raymond E. Hoover 
Ray Lankford 
Glenn Reeves 
Ernest A. Tedder 
Warren R. White 

Hubert L. Evans 
Arthur G. Moxley 
Orlice C. Scott 

Kenny B. Caraway 
William H.Sudderth 

Loyd F. Fowler 
Roger V. Murray 
William M. Roberts 

Mae E. Snyder 
Robert D. Thompson 
Glenn D. Young 

Boyd L. Johnson 
Norman L. Reese 
Dennis Z. Ruppert 



District County 
Yancey 



25 



Burke 



Caldwell 



Catawba 



26 



Mecklenburg 



27 



Cleveland 



Magistrate 

W.A. Higgins 
W.W. Roberts 

Francis R. Cannon 
Marvin Connelly 
Ellis M. Morgan 
Julius S. Page 
Frank W. Tise 
Frederick W. Walker 

Clem M. Alley 
Robert D. Beshears 
Robert H. Greer 
Cecil W. Hailey 
J. Felix Parlier 
Sylvester Thomas 
Robert C.Wakefield 

Marcenia B. Brown 
C. Duncan Felts 
Rickman N. Fleming 
Wiliiam P. Lackey 
Donald Lemons 
Kenneth H. McDaniel 
Hubert M.Setzer "" 
Banks V. Taylor 
Jack C. Williams 

Geneva B. Burnette 
L. Carl Cook 
J. Miller Crosland 
James R. Dixon 
Stephen C. Douglas 
Joe F. Edwards 
J.B. Figgatt, Jr. 
Allen E. Knighten 
Marion L. Laney 
Virgil C. Liner 
R.D. McKinney 
Hilda H. Mayes 
Vernon O. Moore 
G.R. Nance 
H.J. Poe 

Jackie M. Roseberry 
Wilson M. Sadler 
Rebecca G. Sirginson 
Eloise M. Stilwell 
Robert N. Williams 
D.H. McElroy 

David L. Bass 
Charles T. Carpenter, Jr. 
Kenneth W. Costner 
Bruce H. Ellis 



73 



MAGISTRATES 



District 



Count\ 



Magistrate 



District County 



Magistrate 



Gaston 



Lincoln 



> 



Buncombe 



29 



Henderson 



Agnes L. Gaskey 
J.R. Greene 
Fred D. Mintz, Sr. 

Lillian M. Ballard 
Mina L. Beatty 
Jean By n urn 
William P. Crocker 
Jack O'B. Ellington 
C. Hugh Hovis 
Ralph L. Mauney 
B. Eugene Medlock 
Gerald J. Moller 
Howard E. Nation 
Charles W. Robinson 
Jerry R. Scates 
Robert W. Terrell 

H. Austin Bradshaw 
J. Curtis Broome 
David M. Burgin 
Donnie Culberson 
Harry Graham 

Gary A. Burleson 
G. Kimberley Carter 
OttoW. DeBruhl 
John A. Dusenbury, Jr. 
Inez D. Goodman 
Coleman F. Harris 
Pauline P. Harrison 
Clay W. London 
Mary C. Lucas 
Garry D. Moffitt 
Jackie R. Puckridge 
Marie B. Talley 

Hoyle Adams 
Billy G. Bagenstos 
Atlas R. Hill 
WinfredS. McLeod 
William F. Maxwell 



McDowell 

Polk 
Rutherford 



50 



Transylvania 
Cherokee 

Clay 
Graham 

Haywood 



Jackson 



Macon 



Swain 



Frances L. Adkins 
Douglas G.Elliott 
Frank M. Gibbs 
Worley B. Greene 

William V. McCown 
Ruth W. West 

Joseph N. Biggerstaff 
Edward M. Holland 
A. Ross Hudson 
Wallace M. Littlejohn 
James D. Price 
Wayne R. Rash 

Dale A. Blythe 
Ernest Gilstrap 

Hubert W. Craig 
Vincent F. Jones 
Andrew J. Rose 

William P. Bradley 

William A. Crisp 
ReoC. Cooper 

Joseph S. Davis 
I.G. Franklin 
John W. Holtzclaw 
Arthur D. Lee 
Hugh A. Moody 
Jerry W. Moody 

Dan M. Allison, Jr. 
Barbara C. Hooper 
John H. Morris, Jr. 

Charles H. Boring 
John E. Henson 
William H. Waldroop 

William G. Burnett 
Lester E. Pederson 



74 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

Justice Building 
Raleigh, North Carolina 



Director: Bert M. Montague 
Assistant Director: Franklin Freeman 



Office of Counsel 

Counsel: Taylor McMillan 
Administrator, Clerks' Services: James L. Glenn 
Field Representatives: Brooks Gardner 
Curtis Powell 



Fiscal Management Division 

Controller: J. Donald Chappell 

Budget and Accounting Officer: Howard F. Nipper 

Purchasing Officer: Douglas F. Pearson 



Juvenile Services Division 

Administrator: Thomas A. Danek 
Assistant Administrator: Edward Taylor 
Educational Coordinator: F. Gerald Peterson 



Personnel Division 

Administrator: B.J. Mooneyham 
Personnel Analyst: Winford L. Nelson 



Research and Planning Division 

Director: Robert E. Giles 

Research Associate: Dallas A. Cameron 

Research Assistants: Gail C. Arneke 

William F. Harris, II 
Educational Coordinator: Sandra P. Babb 
LEA A Grants Manager: Robert P. Boswell 
Systems Manager: C.R. Puryear, Jr. 
Systems Analysts: Charles Copeland, Jr. 
Charles E. Ferrell 
Kenneth Emerson 



75 



"A~E . 5RAP^ OF NORTH CAROLINA" 



3 3091 00748 2896